How Do Christians Understand their HUMANITY? Basic Bible Doctrine

“Made in the Image of God” means

we mirror His characteristics.

For those in the ancient Near Eastern world, being made in “the image of God” (Gen 1:26, 27) carried great weight. For one to bear the image or likeness of the Divine would mean to have God’s essence, nature, and characteristics. There was no “one-for-one” correspondence: the image bearer was not God in flesh (cf. Gen 2:7; Is 31:3; John 4:24). However, humankind, in this case, bore the authority of Deity over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28; Heb 2:8), yet were still under His created authority (Is 57:16; Zech 12:1; Rom 1:25; 1 Tim 6:15-16), dependent (Job 12:10), belonging to God (cf. Matt 22:20-21).

In the same way, the king—if considered a god on earth such as Egyptian pharaohs—were vice-regents of the god they served. The human was thought to accomplish the deity’s work on earth (Gen 2:15-20; 9:1-3; cf. Matt 6:10). The Hebraic-Christian teaching on God’s image in humans can be summarized as people are a representation of God and God’s representative on earth (cf. Psalm 8:5-8).

To be created in the image of The Personal Eternal Triune Creator meant that humans were made with worth, value, and dignity. Resembling, being similar to God, means humans mirror God’s attributes metaphysically including intellect, will, relationship, emotion, etc. witnessed from Genesis two through Revelation. Being distinctive persons, humans have intrinsic value having been made by The Creator (Ps 139:14-16) and cannot be simply equated to an animal (Matt 10:28-31), a machine (Matt 16:26), or a consumer (Matt 6:20, 25; Luke 12:15).

Inalienable (that is something given from outside humanity, incapable of being taken away) human rights are predicated upon inherent human worth given by the transcendent source of The Personal Creator. Exodus 20-25 and Deuteronomy 19-25 give multiple commands for protection of both people and their property. So, oppression of the poor was a statement of belief about “their Maker” (Prov 14:31). Defenseless ones (Deut 24-25; Jas 1:27) and even those outside the believing community (Ex 23:9; Lev 18:26; Deut 10:19; Mal 3:5; Gal 3:29; 6:9-10) are the responsibility of caring, protecting believers. To gossip or slander another was an egregious attack on God—the offended party bearing His image (Jas 3:9). Protection of people is a central tenet for treatment of humanity, no matter their station, race, gender, age, or nationality (cf. Rom 2:11; 1 Tim 5:21; Jas 3:17).

Because of the example set by God toward all people (Acts 10:34-35), believers should give fair treatment to all people (Lev 19:36; Deut 16:18; Prov 1:3; 2:9; 9:9; 17:26), granting a level place where no advantage is given (the Hebraic definition of fairness). This justice is stimulated by “fearing” God, having a personal relationship with Him (2 Sam 23:3). No favoritism should be shown in

the marketplace (Prov 16:11; Is 59:14),

the courtroom (Prov 17:15, 26; Amos 5:12),

leadership positions (Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17),

financial markets (Deut 16:18-20; 2 Chron 19:7; Prov 24:23; 28:21),

the workplace (Lev 19:13; Mal 3:5) and

The Church (Jas 2:1-13)

If people bear the mark of their Creator, helping others by whatever ethical means necessary should be the concern of every Christian.

 This statement was originally written by Dr. Eckel for “School Wide Biblical Integration,” an ACSI enabler in 2002, having been used in various venues since.

It’s Not About You: How to Form Personal Convictions (#2)

“It’s Not About You”

conviction2-me

During a student teacher observation the student-teacher invited me to sit at her desk. My eyes looked back and forth from her delivery to my notes as I assessed her instruction. At some point my sight was arrested by a simple plaque on her desk. It was all of four words which faced her, not her students. It read simply

“It’s not about you.”conviction2-you

The student teacher had learned the biblical teaching well. Her students were her focus.

It’s not about you summarizes Paul’s teaching about personal convictions (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8). Forming convictions—decisions I make about issues which have no standard for “right” nor “wrong”—has more to do with others than with me. 

“Me! Me! Me!” is what we have become accustomed to in culture, however. “I do what’s good for me” has become our collective mantra. We not only think of ourselves before others, when we do think of others, we often think “I wonder what they can do for me?”

conviction2-13Our desire for self-satisfaction is captured in the opening scene of 13 Conversations About One Thing:

“What is it that you want?”

“What everyone wants. To experience life.”

And later in the movie we discover the answer to the answer;

“It’s like the old Gypsy curse, ‘May you get what you want.’”

The movie corrects what our culture desires, “I just want to be happy.” “Happiness,” as with all words, should be defined, then described, then distinguished. The chart below is an attempt to see the Christian difference. 

Cultural Happiness

 

Christian Happiness

Feels Good

Free Expression

What I want

Definition Expresses Joy

Gives Peace

Outside Blessing

Pleasurable Gain

Emotional Good

Material “Get”

Source God

Creation

Salvation

Approval

Acceptance

Award

Goal God-centered

Self-less

Others-focused

Fulfillment

Satisfaction

Winning

Result Contentment

Liberty

Gratitude

The Hebrew background to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew (22.37-40) begins in Leviticus (19.18) and Deuteronomy (6.5). Our love of God is shown by our love for others.

conviction2-face“Others” is the context to Paul’s famous teaching on personal convictions in Romans 14. (Part One). If we skim chapters 12 and 13 of Romans we find sections on submission, service, and sacrifice, words which inform Romans 14—“It’s not about you!” Indeed, Romans 15.1-8 bookends Romans 12-13 reemphasizing “the strong serve the weak.” 

True “happiness” is not the license to serve self or the legalism to control others’ convictions. Instead, true happiness is self-sacrifice found in Christ’s sacrifice (Gal 5.1). The key to the practice of personal conviction is not self but others. My happiness should be found in making others “happy” (joy filled, peace giving, blessing focused).

When I taught in high school I created a yearly button detailing our school theme. Each button contained one word. The very first display piece for outerwear and backpacks reflected the biblical teaching

Others conviction2-othes

Personal convictions says what my student teacher said, “It’s not about you.”

Reflect personally over questions of Individualism (“Me, Me, Me!”) and Hedonism (“Please Me! Please Me!”) as they relate to constructing personal convictions from Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8:

  1. How can temporal happiness with no real boundaries be better than the parameters established by The eternal God?
  2. Can anything lasting be built solely on happiness?  A college education?  Law?  Working at a job?  What do each of these demand?
  3. Is rejecting the Christian worldview because it is “hard” (both to fully understand and to live) for something “easy” (personal peace and affluence), a wise choice?  Why or why not?
  4. How will our choices for “happiness” affect others?
  5. How will the decisions for happiness of others affect us?  What would have happened to us had others chosen “happiness” over commitment?
  6. What if others’ happiness conflicts with our own?  Will we be able to say, “Don’t do that!  You’ll ruin my happiness!”?  Explain.
  7. How will we make future decisions based on happiness?
  8. Can nations, economies, cultures, or daily life be sustained by happiness as a goal?
  9. How are individual, experiential choices different from selfishness?
  10. Is “choice” a servant or a master?
  11. Why do young people agree with the advice of their peers (“Do what makes you happy”) over the 18 year wisdom of their parents (“Do what pleases God”)?
  12. If we are only to please ourselves, why should parents provide stability and security?
  13. Are things that are easily had easily lost?  Is anything in life “easy”?
  14. What isn’t hard or difficult that has worth?
  15. How have diligence and vigilance built your life to this point?
  16. How many hundreds of times do we make decisions that keep normalcy or consistency in life?  Is this better or worse than “happiness”?  Explain.
  17. Are we willing to give up “choice” for the sake of another?

Mark has just as much trouble thinking-living with the concept of OTHERS as anyone. He does not like his answers to these questions either.

Image credits, top to bottom: ranklocal.com; blog.schoollibrarymedia.com; imdb.com; pinbackattack.com; photobucket.com

Responding to Pain, Tragedy, Loss

Sometimes, we live with puzzle pieces

and no box top to see the big picture.

Moore OK tornado

She stood by the side of the road crying.

A stranger stopped to offer comfort.

Her jaw radiated pain; her body shuddered. There was no relief.

It had been an awful wisdom tooth extraction. She now had a dry socket. A week later another oral surgeon had to “go in” again to cut her gum line, looking for bone fragments. During the surgery he “tapped on her jawbone” to assess whether or not it contained an infection. The pain Chelsea felt was left over from the doctor’s bone “tapping.” She took Vicodin: two at a time. The pain was unrelenting. The hygienist told my daughter that pain after surgery can flash back three, four, or five days after the event.

How about three, four, or five years? What of three, four, or five decades?

crying eyePeople suffer the memory of calamity in multiple ways, over multiple years: 

* The Moore, Oklahoma landscape was chiseled clean by an F5 twister.

* A Korean War veteran’s remains are laid to rest sixty years later.

* Roadside memorials of loved ones killed on the highway, maintained for all to see.

* Pictures on the mantle of parents, spouses, children, or siblings record loss.

* Economic downturns and duplicitous bosses make unemployment a disheartening reality.

* Some suffer the unremitting pain of depression, schizophrenia, head-trauma, or PTSD [1].

Raw, mangled, ravaged, empty, stripped bear, searing loss: pick a metaphor. Folks suffer when something or someone is taken away whether possessions, stability, sanity, or in some cases, lives.

Johnny Cash made famous this rendition of the song “Hurt.” In part, the lyrics readjohnny_cash_hurt2

Everyone I know,

Goes away in the end.

And you could have it all,

My empire of dirt . . .

No one of us can ever fully understand what another feels.

A quadriplegic, Joni Eareckson Tada, once revealed in her book A Step Further that everything from a hangnail to loss of mobility was “suffering” depending on the person. My sense of loss can never measure that of another. I could not, nor would I, think that I could understand my neighbor’s pain. So what is left for us to do?

Five things not to do in times of calamity:

1. Don’t compare: when someone tells you of their pain, do not bring up yours

2. Don’t complain: do not suggest to someone who has just lost everything that you lost anything

3. Don’t answer: folks want to vent and rage; your reply should be silence

4. Don’t leave: nothing replaces physical presence

5. Don’t critique: people cry, scream, swear, drink, smoke; be sensitive, ditch your sensitivities

Five proper responses in times of calamity:

1. Shut up: Keep your pious platitudes to yourself

2. Show up: Be with people who are hurting today, next week, next month, next year.

3. Pay up: Take out your wallet and pay the tab, don’t think about it, just do it

4. Stay up: Friend in pain can’t sleep, neither should you, darkness in the dark is double hard

5. Keep up: Lose your schedule, routine, and expectations; your friends in crisis just lost theirs

But what of the future? How do we make sense of pain?

Man and Society in CalamityPitirim Sorokin, founder of Harvard’s sociology department looked for an answer. He sought to explain how catastrophes of various kinds—wars, famines, pestilence—started other social forces. After exhaustive research, Sorokin’s conclusion was that religious revivals often begin in crisis. [2] His 1942 book Man and Society in Calamity made this claim:

The principal steps in the progress of mankind toward a spiritual religion and a noble code of ethics have been taken primarily under the impact of great catastrophes. [3]

Great catastrophes can bring great change. The past principle does not make us feel any better, nor should it be used to consul. But history may alter our view of the future. The history of Jesus’ suffering–the greatest “catastrophe” in human history–gives us the greatest change:

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (Hebrews 4:14-18)

Jesus’ suffering shows God’s ultimate care for human hurt.  Chelsea, the citizens of Moore, OK, American veterans, the jobless, everyone who hurts, remembers the pain. We should remember that folks who have suffered calamity remember. We should remember so that we never forget.

Every day is Memorial Day. 

Mark Eckel personally seeks truth wherever it’s found.  

[1] PTSD stands for “post traumatic stress disorder.”

[2] Mary Eberstadt, “Faith and Family,” National Review, 20 May 2013, p. 35.

[3] p. 226.

 

 

Pastor

Pastors are Teachers

pastor as teacher

A symbolic thread of the shepherd-king woven throughout the tapestry of Scripture (1 Chr. 17:6; Ps. 23; Jer. 6:3; 23:4; Mic. 5:5-6; Nah. 3:18; Jn. 10:11; Re. 7:16-17) is the same thread used to create a mantel for the pastor as teacher. The New Testament reference to “shepherd” (Eph. 4:11, Acts 20:28), is literally the role of “pastor” (Eph. 4.11) and “teacher” (Eph. 4:11, Titus 1:9, 1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17). Pastors of The Church are to be shepherds responsible to The Chief Shepherd (1 Pe. 5:1), Who says, “shepherds after my own heart who will lead you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:15).

Biblical Theology of Pastor as Teacher

Shepherd or pastor-teachers taught based on knowledge from God (Jer 9:24-27). God Himself teaches (Ps. 25:8, 12; 27:11) so Jesus being called “teacher” comes as no surprise (Mat. 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; etc.). God’s spokespersons the priests and prophets taught, prophets being principally forth-tellers, expositors of God’s teaching from the Pentateuch (Lev. 10:11; Deu. 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr. 17:7-9; Eze. 44:23; Mic. 3:11). Teaching based upon the Old Testament (Rom. 15:4; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; 2 Tim. 3:16) is referred to as “the faithful word” (Rom. 6:17; 16:17; Eph 4:21; Col 2:7; 2 The. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2; Ti. 1:9).

Teaching impacts the intellect which in turn is to impact being and behavior. “Sound” teaching indicates one who literally had good hygiene; they were healthy or well (1 Tim. 1:8-10; Mat. 6:22-3). Titus 1:9 and 2:1 emphasize hygienic doctrine; the verses serve as bookends around unsound living (Ti. 1:10-16). Teaching can be either positive or negative (Rom. 15:4; Col. 2:22) necessitating that teaching based on Scripture’s text was to be evaluated (1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29; 1 The. 5:21-22).

Teaching will either be right or wrong, good or bad. Rejection of unsound teaching (1 Tim.6:2) is a pastor’s responsibility. Pastors defend their people against teachers whose motives are self-centered or money-centered (1 Tim. 1:7; Ti. 1:11). Pastors must point out doctrine which is strange (Heb. 13:9), going against the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9-10). Pastors must specify certain groups (Rev. 2:14), their teaching (Rev 2:20, 24), and individuals (2 Tim. 2:16-19) who may dissuade The Church from truth (Eph. 4:14). False teaching will occur (2 Pe. 2:1), its origin being obvious (1 Tim. 4:1). Good pastors must replace bad pastors (Jer. 23:1-4), actively refuting unsound doctrine, teaching about Jesus (Ac. 28:30-31). Teaching is based upon Jesus’ person and work (Ac. 4:2, 18) and the teaching about Jesus is usually contentious (Ac 5:21, 24, 5:42).

Biblical Philosophy of Pastor as Teacher

Pastoral authority is from Heaven (Gal. 1:12; 1 Cor. 12:28).  A pastor’s teaching is dependent upon The Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Jn 2:27). Pastoral teaching is a gift (Eph. 4:11), the gift of teaching to be used (Rom. 12:7; 1 Tim. 4:11, 13).

Teaching is intentional. Teaching includes planning ahead for what will be said later (1 Cor. 11:17, 34; 1 The. 4:2; 2 The. 3:6-15). Knowing what an audience can handle is significant.  Paul knew that the Corinthians were mere infants, unable to handle more than breast-milk (1 Cor. 3:1-3). Pastor-teachers view themselves as responsible for the education of their people (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11). The connection to fathers as teachers is important to identify (1 Cor. 4:17; Eph 4:21; Col 1:28; 2:7; 2 The. 2:15). Teaching demands both tact (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2) and confrontation (2 Tim. 1:13-14) A pastor holds to The Truth, encourages teaching in community, actively refuting unsound doctrine (Ti. 1:9).

The New Testament description of leaders (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Pe. 5:1-4) warns against the negative, highlighting the positive.  Shepherds were to keep watch, be on their guard, serve as overseers, be willing, be eager, setting examples. God’s people were often referenced as sheep needing a shepherd (Mat. 9:36): one of Jesus’ final commands to Peter (Jn. 21:15-17).

Christian Practice of Pastor as Teacher

Disciple-making, literally learning, being the primary task of The Church is fostered through the continuous process of teaching (Mat. 28:19). Church people should not choose pastors who only tell them what they want to hear (2 Tim 4:3). Pastors have peoples’ eternal welfare in mind (Heb. 13:17). Pastoral oversight (Acts 20:28) is to be respected for the peoples’ own best interest (Heb. 13:17).

Self-reflection is the responsibility of a pastor to their own teaching (1 Tim. 4:16). Paul makes a point of saying “this is not about me” (1 Tim. 1:12-17).  In fact, he ends with a hymn in verse 17, punctuating the truth. A pastor should live an earnestly devout life (2 Tim. 3:12) understanding that teaching is lived theology (Ti. 2:12).

A teacher is entrusted with authority (1 Tim. 4:11; Ti. 2:15), guarding the doctrinal treasure with the help of The Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 1:14). A pastor reads (2 Tim. 4:13) for the purpose of preaching, instruction, interpretation, application, and refutation. 2 Timothy 2:14-15 explains the importance of pastoral detail. Pastors are wary of extremes or disputes about words. An obsession over trivialities, majoring on the minors, and quibbles over minutia (1 Tim. 1:6, 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16; Ti. 3:9) which is no good whatsoever, can literally cause a catastrophe. The corrective to the extreme is hard work. Diligence, documented approval, avoidance of shoddy workmanship, and cutting straight lines are the imperatives which produce strong doctrine.

Other Helps

Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon, 2nd ed.(Grand Rapids, Baker, 2005).

Lawrence O. Richards and Gary J. Bredfeldt, Creative Bible Teaching, rev. (Chicago, Moody Publishers, 1998).

“Pastor” (c) is published in the Christian Education Encyclopedia by Dr. Eckel.

 

Right from Wrong

 Who says what is right and wrong?

ethics

https://appliedbehavioralstrategies.wordpress.com/category/funny/

Moral philosophy, also known as “social ethics,” seeks answers to the question “What is right and wrong?” Supposed synonymous words (morals, values, ethics, or beliefs) often assume that correct behavior arises from community codes of conduct. The Christian viewpoint is quite distinctive. Christian views of social ethics necessarily distinguish “values” and “morals” from “ethics” and “beliefs.” What some consider to be “normal” (values) or “acceptable” (morals) in any given culture may indeed be right or wrong in another culture. By contrast, “ethics” implies “should” and “ought” which in turn assumes a standard outside the community. “Beliefs” for the Christian embeds sociology within theology.

Only three possible standards or sources exist for how one should live in any culture:

(1) individual desire,

(2) community design, or

(3) transcendent declaration.

Individuals, separated from the ethical framework or social fellowship of others exercise their autonomy to the betterment or detriment of others; the standards for “betterment” and “detriment” left to one’s own choices. Communities may have what others consider to beneficent, altruistic motives but also depend on what is acceptable for the group even when harm could come to other groups because of the first group’s actions. Further complications arise from tyrannical or totalitarian leadership within a community where one or a few set standards demanding compliance through fear from the whole community. Transcendent standards, most often originating from holy books or prophetic utterance, can be manipulated by human interpreters for the interpreter’s own interests. However, without a supernatural code by which a society commits itself, autonomous human ethics reign supreme.

In a fallen world, the best hope for community compliance is commitment to a cogent code given from a personal, eternal, Triune creator, the Hebrew-Christian God of the Bible. Social ethics, from a Hebraic-Christian point of view, demands the following:

(1) A righteous, revelatory standard founded in the Bible (Ps 119; 1 Thess 4:1-12),

(2) a transformed spirit, affecting the being, the interiority of the believer (Ps 19:13-14; Rom 8:5-9),

(3) Christian leaders who submit themselves to the standard in word, attitude, and deed (2 Kgs 23:24-25; 1 Tim 3; Titus 1),

(4) Christian leaders who prompt the Christian church toward the practice of Christian ethics (Ps 15; Heb 10:24; 13:1-7, 17),

(5) Christians who practice Christian ethics in the society where they live (Deut 4:5-8; Titus 2:1-10); and

(6) social ethics in lived society are influenced by Christian social ethics (Jer 29:1-7; 1 Tim 1:8-11).

The results of Christian social ethics in society begin with Old Testament teaching and should always produce (1) equality of commitment to all people being made in God’s image (Gen 1:26-27), (2) equitable rewards which benefit all people (Ps 107), (3) standards of justice applied to all (Is 58-59), and (4) a sense that preparation for the next life depends on how this life is lived (Ps 73).

Practices

The practice of beneficence toward others is what it means to practice one’s Christian faith (Titus 3:1, 8, 14). The church often took care of its own (Acts 4:32-37). There was no limitation on belief: all should be cared for (Gal 6:9-10). There was no limitation on time: doing good can seem to be an unending task and must be encouraged (Gal 6:9; 2 Thess 3:13). There was no limitation on effort: continued service is the expectation (John 9:4; 1 Cor 15.58; Gal 6:9; 2 Thess 3:13). There was no limitation on result: doing good was not in vain (1 Co 4:5; 15:58; 2 Jn 8). The Christian does not do good for their salvation but because of their salvation (Eph 2:8-10; 4:24; Col 1:10). Works of service to others originate first from God (John 15:5-6; Phil 1:11; Col 1:6). 

Doing good, however, can be misconstrued. Some substitute good works for salvation from sin which can only be given by God through His grace (Gal 1:15; 2:16; 3:11-14). Some do good out of anticipation of earthly reward, whether through gain or glory (Acts 8:18-19; Phil 1:17-19). Still others do good out of a sincere faith but do not realize its negative impact on the populace served. Books such as When Helping Hurts warn that material needs cannot be separated from immaterial beliefs. The Spiritual Danger of Doing Good petitions believers that their good works may be susceptible to imperceptible motivations and unintended consequences. The essence of social ethics, like everything else in life, can fall prey to a disillusionment or disconnection from the original purpose for the believer: to glorify God in all things (Ps 115:1; Col 3:23), acknowledging Him as the source of any competence (2 Co 3:5; 4:5). Loving one’s neighbor because one loves God is the essence of what it means to be a Christian (Gal 5:14; c.f. Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; John 13:34).

Books such as Stephen Mansfield’s In Search of God and Guinness demonstrate the personal commitment and communal impact a thoroughly Christian mindset can have on social ethics in business practices which immediately impact individuals and institutions. Kingdom Calling, by Amy L. Sherman, gives a myriad of examples from every conceivable vocation of how the practice of Christian social ethics produces justice and brings mercy to any neighborhood. Inspirational stories, as identified in books like William Bennett’s The Book of Virtues, can motivate toward goodness. But good examples cannot be simply applied from the outside without internal change, a key tenet of Christian ethics (Eph 4:20-24; Col 3:12-15). 

Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity shows the historic impact of Christian social ethics on the Roman culture. Before his own conversion to the gospel, Stark researched how the believing community in Rome impacted the city. The practice of ministering physical care through epidemics made the gospel of Jesus attractive. In books that followed, Stark showed how Christian thinking-being-living had a direct impact on social good. The earliest Christian apologists—Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch—defended Christians to Roman persecutors with this dictum: Christians provided Rome with the best citizens, because Christians contributed to the social good of the empire. Christian ethics were built on Christian belief that right and wrong have a transcendent source in the Hebraic-Christian God, Yahweh, revealed in His Son, Jesus.

“Social Ethics”© is an essay in the 5-volume Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States through Rowman & Littlefield, all rights reserved.

The Importance of Preaching

Good News for all who preach it.

preaching

Speaking biblical truth in words people can understand is the work of Christian preaching.

Preaching is generally referred to as proclamation, often an explanation, from God’s Word, the Christian book, the Bible. Preaching in Scripture most often refers to telling the Good News—known as “the gospel”—to those who are not believers. Public statements (Matt 3:1; Mark 1:14; 2 Tim 4:2), announcing Christ and His work (Acts 5:42; Rom 10:15; 1 Co 1:17), are both the emphasis of Jesus’ ministry (Matt 4:23; Luke 4:44) and the responsibility of Jesus-followers to declare the same (Acts 28:31; 2 Tim 4:2). 

Compatible descriptions of Jesus’ speaking include “preaching” and “teaching” (Mark 1:14, 15, 21, 28, 39). Epistolary New Testament references can include both terms as seemingly interchangeable (Col 1:28), however, the activities are regularly separated (Eph 4:11; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11; 4:2-4). Differences between words used for “preaching” and “teaching” in the early church would tend to emphasize evangelism in the first (Rom 1:15-16), training in the second (Col 2:6-7). “Teaching” is a spiritual gift (Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:8-11, 28; Eph 4:11-12; 1 Pet 4:11) which is to expound the Word of God (Acts 15:35; 18:11, 24-28; Rom 2:21; 15:4; Col 3:16; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 5:12). “Preaching” has been expanded to mean what normally takes place in the company of Christians; an explanation and application of the Bible from the pulpit or from behind a lectern. Christian assemblies often refer to “preaching” meaning “teaching” in a Sunday morning context (Acts 20:20, 27).

The word homiletics—conversation or discourse with an assembled group—is frequently used for the study and practice of preaching. Crafting communication in a sermon (literally, a stringing together of words) for a local congregation is normally the work of a pastor, described in Scripture as a shepherd (1 Pet 5:1-4). Leading the flock by teaching God’s Word is crucial for Christian maturity (Jn 21; Acts 20). False teaching or preaching is also warned against (Rom 16:17-18).  Approaches to preaching may be as varied as those who preach.

Methods and examples abound, accessible through print and digital formats. But style comes from belief and belief arises from acceptance. If preaching has its roots in the Christian Church, the reason for preaching (Jesus) will be equal to the acceptance of Christian belief (Jesus is Lord and Savior). Biblical preaching depends on Christian belief, coming from God’s revelation through prophets and apostles to humans, through the Scriptures (Eph 2:20; 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 4:11; 6:2, 3; 2 Tim 2:2; 3:10; 2 Pet 3:2).

Crucial components to Christian preaching depend upon writing, reading, proclaiming, hearing, and changing.

(1) Writing is the content. Words are only important if Truth is important and Truth is communicated with words through a book. God’s Word ends in Revelation by referencing “words” and “book” six and seven times respectively (Rev 22:7-10, 18-19).

(2) Reading is the command. The Written Word and The Living Word teach that words are the soil of belief (Jn 1:1-18). Well chosen reading, then, is the fertilizer of a Hebraic-Christian leadership mindset (Deut 17:18-20; Josh 1.8; Ps 119:103; Acts 17:11; 20:18-21, 27) for the soil of those who listen to preaching (Luke 8:4-18).

(3) Proclaiming is the compulsion. The preacher cannot contain the inner passion (Jer 20.9), the irresistible compulsion of The Holy Spirit (1 Co 12:4-11, 28, 29; 2 Tim 1:14) to tell others about Christ (1 Co 9:16).

(4) Hearing is the communication. A key word in Scripture, the Hebrew word “hear” comprises a threefold concept: receiving information through the ears, listening to the words which leads to understanding, and obeying the declaration by acting on its truth (1 Sam 15:22-23; Jas 1:19-25).

(5) Changing is the commitment. God declares His Word will not return void (Isa 55:10-11), instilling a transformed spirit within the individual (Rom 2:21), infusing a renovated spirit within countries (Jonah 3), inspiring an amazed spirit within groups (Luke 2:18, 47), illumining a reformed spirit within the preacher (Rom 10:14; Titus 1:3), and influencing a committed spirit within the listener (Isa 45:22; Matt 11:13; 13:9; Mark 4:9).

“How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom 10:14) is the question answered by those who preach. The audience then bears responsibility once the preaching is heard (Matt 11:20-24).

Preaching through the power of the Holy Spirit makes listeners accountable to the message (1 Cor 2:6-13).

“Preaching”  © is one of 22 articles included in the History of Christianity in the United States (Rowman & Littlefield) by Dr. Mark Eckel.

References & Resources

Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005; Kaiser, Walter C. Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament: A Guide for the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003; Martin Lloyd-Jones, David. Preaching & Preachers, 40th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012; Mathewson, Steven D. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002; Motyer, Alec. Preaching? Simple Teaching on Simply Preaching. Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2013; Robinson, Haddon. Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014; Stanley, Andy. Communicating for A Change: Seven Keys to Irresistible Communication. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah, 2006.

Sin for One But Not Another? How to Form Personal Convictions (#1)

“Is there a line we should not cross?”

convictions-trespass

He wanted to know which movies

Christians should and should not watch.

He was sincere, adamant, and honest.

I believe each Christian should read Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8,” I began. “Those two chapters set the convictions-boundariesparameters for personal convictions.”

I went on, describing the basic ideas of the two chapters, pointing out, as Paul did, that “what is sin for one is not necessarily sin for another.”

But he continued to press the issue. “Come on. There has to be a line some where! If the only thing we say is ‘a Christian shouldn’t watch porn’ then we could watch anything else!”

He brought up The Wolf of Wall Street referencing what he had read about the movie: there are numerous sex scenes, innumerable profanities, nudity, drug use, and every type of lasciviousness.

“You are right.” I tried to steer him back to the point. “Should we intentionally set sin in front of ourselves?” He shookconviction-wolf his head up and down in agreement. “I wonder if you also agree with other sin we intentionally practice.” I listed potential but very practical situations.

1. Should you spend $5 on a cup of coffee at a shop that does not practice “fair trade”?

2. Should you purchase goods from a company which gives money to Planned Parenthood?

3. Should you support a candidate who is gay but who agrees with your political positions?

convictions-panhandler4. Should you give money to every panhandler you meet on a city street because the Christian is to “give to everyone in need.”

5. Should you make decisions based on what will make you ‘happy’?

“Those issues do not deal with movies!” he shot back.

“But these issues ask the same question, ‘Do you have a personal standard of conduct for every situation?’” I was trying to be direct without being offensive.

His point was repetitious: “There has to be a standard somewhere.”

I referenced Scriptural standards. I reminded him of The Spirit’s conviction. I spoke of local church guidelines, pastoral exhortations, possible conduct rubrics, and accountability within community. I gave multiple, biblical references to personal responsibility under the auspices of biblical boundaries.convictions-boundary

Nothing sufficed.

Others in the group engaged the matter from various angles. It was a heartfelt, honest discussion.

One thing was missing: accepting personal responsibility. [1] The problem for this young man, the problem with this line of questioning, was that one must accept personal responsibility for his own actions: the specific point of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. [2]

convictions-answersI wish there was an exact answer for every specific question I have about conduct in life. I wish I knew the particular words that would make it absolutely easy to make decisions. I wish my mind could be so precise about every issue I face. I wish I could make strict, literal, accurate assessments of every problem for all people. But alas, my wishes cannot meet the demands.

Sometimes people continue to ask questions

because they do not like the answers.

Sometimes people continue to ask the same questions

because they do not want an answer.

Mark has and continues to address the central concern in life: authority. Dr. Eckel knows we all kick against authority every chance we get . . . ever since Genesis 3. 

[1] His facial expression, tone, body language, and eye contact registered what I have seen occasionally during my teaching vocation: rejection of me as an authority. I have encountered the same issue for years. The same person who rejects someone’s authority wants that same authority figure to offer exact, authoritative guidelines so that those authoritative guidelines can also be rejected.

[2] Paul offers general guidelines from Romans 14 and its corollary 1 Corinthians 8. New Christians, fresh from idolatrous practices, believed that eating meat offered to idols was a sin. Paul counters the immature Christian belief in these chapters. The apostle uses the term “servant” (Rom 14:4) to suggest the idea of “conviction”: a viewpoint about which we can agree to disagree. Principles to practice from Romans 14:

1. Condemnation should not happen! Convictions do not dictate what another does (14:1-3).

2. Convinced in one’s own mind, coerced only by God’s direction (14:4, 5).

3. Conscious of God’s presence in decisions about conviction (14:6-8).

4. Convicted by The Lord who alone knows our hearts (14:9-12).

5. Concerned for the “weaker brother” and “stumbling blocks” (14:13-21).

Who is the “weaker brother”? 1 Corinthians 8:7 suggests that this is a new or young convert to The Faith. They (1) regard as wrong that which is not wrong or (2) are unclear, undecided in judgment. This believer is NOT someone of differing convictions. The “stumbling block” is an obstacle consciously, purposefully, willfully designed to ensnare a victim or plan temptation. Growth is expected in the Christian life. Again, “weaker brothers” are new Christians, NOT a deacon in the local church for 30 years.

6. Confined between us and God (14:22)

7. Conscience controlled by The Holy Spirit dictates our decisions (14:23).

Bottom line: Can some things or activities be sin for some and not others? Yes. But notice the continuation of Paul’s thinking through to Romans 14-15:1-7, 1 Corinthians 8, and Galatians 6:1-5. Be sure to understand:

1. The weaker person should not be made to feel inferior, unwanted, or odd.

2. The stronger person should not be maligned, resented, or criticized.

3. Levels of spiritual development do exist.

4. “The strong” bear responsibility for the “weak” (Gal 6:1)

5. Spiritual good of others is our imperative focus.

 

How Do We Know Right from Wrong?

As soon as you use the word “should” . . . . . . you assume a standard, a system of morality. Beliefs   Moral philosophy, also known as “social ethics,” seeks answers to the question “What is right and wrong?” Supposed synonymous words (morals, values, ethics, or beliefs) often assume that correct behavior arises...

How Christians Understand the First (not old) Testament

The Old Testament is not “old,” it is First.

The First Testament was written to the first group of God’s People, Israel.

One Book was written by One author with one message. The English reader tends to see the Bible as a series of books rather than the meaning of Bible: The Book. Compartmentalizing books within the canon makes the 21st century Christian miss the continuation of God’s story begun in Genesis, consummated in Revelation. Understanding the coherence of God’s revelation to His people is crucial. Just as threads—small fibers or strands—unite to produce one, strong length of rope, so Scripture’s purpose is captured in many themes throughout The Book.

Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament

The author of the Bible is God. The unity of the Bible is held together by its Author. Throughout biblical history, God has established a complete view of Himself through His words and works. When the Christian reads the Bible she can then be assured the Author has given a whole, total, systemic view of what He wants His people to know (Rom 4:24; 1 Cor 9:10).

The scope of the Bible is broad, capturing the bird’s eye view of God’s eternal plan. Individuals from nations fulfill a universal perspective. Joseph, for instance, is the person who is used to save Israel from starvation, while Israel is used to save the world through Messiah (Gen 50:20). Ruth’s foreign status serves a worldwide purpose: the Davidic dynasty (Ruth 4:13-18). David is Israel’s great king whose lineage births The King of kings (Matt 1:1).

Theological connections begun in the Old Testament continue through to the New Testament. God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are both shown as true, though the explanation is difficult. Exodus, for example, notes God “hardened pharaoh’s heart” (7:3, 13, 14, 22; 8:11, 15, 22; 9:7, 34) while “pharaoh hardened his heart” (9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17). Humans continue to bear responsibility for their own actions while at the same time God superintends all things (Acts 2:23).

The synthesis of the Bible serves to encourage everyone within their time to anticipate God’s ending of time (Rom 15:4; 1 Co. 10:1-11).  Scripture constantly foresees those who would follow (1 Pet 1:10-12). The nature of the Old Testament is to point forward to the New Testament. The seed of sin sown in Genesis is uprooted in The Gospels. Jesus teaching about Himself throughout God’s testament to the Hebrews is explained in His testament to Christians (Luke 24:25-27). Passages such as 1 Peter 2:9-10; Revelation 1:5-6 and 5:10 never lose God’s missional purpose.

Christian Practice for the Hebrew Bible

A general overview should precede the teaching of any biblical text. The use of charts helps the parts of a passage become whole. Diagrams can create simple insights from a complex narrative. Images from ancient archaeology or geography can focus a learner’s awareness of detail. The big picture observation of a text prior to teaching can lead learners to detailed interpretation and ultimately personal application. A Bible encyclopedia search shows that the ten plagues against Egypt functioned as God’s victory against other gods (Deut 12:12; 26:5-9; Josh 24:12-13) explained well with a visual aid.

Interconnecting ideas beginning in the Old Testament should be traced. Connections to multiple concerns of apologetics, doctrine, history, or biography can bring the whole focus of Scripture into clarity. Correlation—finding how passages fit together from across the Bible’s pages—reminds the reader of Scripture’s scope. Finding God’s Hebrew name in Exodus 3 is translated as “I am” makes sense to the learner when they find out the simple phrase was used by ancient kings as a marker of their ultimate status and is used by Jesus to show He is the Hebrew God (John 8, 10, 18)

Teaching large sections of Scripture lends itself to a big picture view.  Themes from one part of a book to another can add to understanding. The word “serve” in Exodus, for instance, is the same word for “worship” appearing scores of times in Exodus as “service,” “serving,” or “servant.” Moses is called God’s servant almost fifty times; the term was used by ancient Near Eastern kings for themselves, working on behalf of the deity (Josh. 1:2).The book begins by Israel serving an Egyptian pharaoh, God taking His people out of Egypt to serve Him, and ends with the building of the tabernacle: the place of Israel’s service-worship.

Genealogical teaching begins in Genesis (chapters 4, 5, 10, 11, 25, 36, 49) and is bracketed by the final Old Testament book, Chronicles (chapters 1-9). To understand Jesus’ genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3, the Christian must see the links beginning in Genesis 4 to Genesis 49 to Ruth 4 to Romans 1:2-4. Hebrew thinking about people in Scripture is directly tied to ancestry.

Simple teaching is the most powerful teaching and can be benefited by mnemonic devices. Laying out Old Testament geography on a classroom floor comes to life when participants hold up a red-C for The Red Sea or pass out caramels at Mt. Carmel.  The book of Leviticus can be taught with the poem “Sacrifices, priests / Special days, feasts / Law code, disease / You can’t do what you please.”

Christian teaching should always lead to application from the Old Testament.  Israel “trembled with fear,” is told not to fear, and yet to fear God (Ex. 20:18-20). How can people be afraid while being told not to fear, yet, to fear God? It seems people cannot live with God and cannot live without Him either.  Jesus’ disciples first showed fear and then refocused their fear when Jesus calmed the storm (Mark 4:35-41). Peter’s response to Jesus’ knowledge of fish schools was a fearful desire to be out of His presence (Luke 5:1-11). Ultimately Christian fear (Phil 2:14-15) should be mindful of adoration that comes from knowing Whom to fear: what Job knew, Paul knew too (Job 42:1-6; Rom 11:33-36).

“Hebrew Bible and Old Testament” © is one of 17 articles included in The Encyclopedia of Christian Education, Rowman & Littlefield by Dr. Mark Eckel.

Picture credit: SnappyGoat.com

 

 

Loss of Belief Causes People to Search for Substitutes

Hummingbirds were the passion of Emily Dickenson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Mark Twain. 

Christopher Benfey’s book A Summer of Hummingbirds traces the interconnectivity of these writers to their interpretation of the beating wings: the fleeting nature of human life.  All had left behind their Christian roots seeing that “the old pieties no longer sufficed” opting instead for a patchwork quilt of personalized faith.  Dickinson concluded “human life, all life, is a route of evanescence.”[1] She developed a view of existence centered in “birds, flowers, the shifting quality of light and of mind.”  Roger Lundin’s review points out the problem of those fluttering wings: “the loss of belief left them riddled with phantom pain.”[2]

Amputees confess the ache of loss to be real.  The mind actually creates a physical illusion to compensate for the missing appendage.[3] But doctors observe that while time may dissipate the sense of loss, it is the focus on something else that eventually eliminates phantom pain.  Creating a trick, a “virtual reality” for the person who has lost a limb, may enhance a patient’s recovery.[4] The illusion of loss is exactly the problem faced by people who have the original taken away.

I use only Coffee-Mate® in my Dunkin’ Donuts® coffee: the packaging adds the large statement “the original.”  Ask anyone who knows me well.  I cannot stand substitute coffee creamer.  One of the true things about aging is the idea that when we have the option, we are no longer interested in knock-offs.  We want what we want; time is short!  While situations arise where my beloved Coffee-Mate® is inaccessible, my taste buds know something is amiss.   Substitution seeks to overcome, but can never replace, the original.

Genesis has had its share of imitators.  Some will declare that since Genesis history was written later than Egyptian or Mesopotamian mythology, that Genesis is the “copy.”  While “literary similarities” exist, “borrowing” does not have to be the explanation.[5] For over 30 years while teaching the book of Genesis from high school through master’s level students I have used a “compare and contrast” approach to learning.  Just before going off to college, for instance, seniors were asked to find similarities and differences between pagan mythologies of the Babylonian Enuma Elish and North American Raven versus the Genesis record. I still have their brilliant summaries in my files.  In an honest comparison, high school seniors discovered this truth: distinction is more important that similarity.

And for 20 years I have diagrammed an alternative approach on the white board.   The original Truth recorded in Genesis 1-2 was distorted by sin because of Genesis 3 creating warped imitations throughout human history.  One nation chiseling their distortion of the original 500 years prior to the actual record does not call Genesis into question.  The differences are so pronounced, Genesis stands alone.

The pagan view is plainly magical—committed to ritual, attempting to placate unknown, unseen, unpleasant forces.  Mythological tales are written in a poetic fashion, creating memorable stories, giving a token sense of human origins.  But these tales are nowhere close to reliable.  John Walton says it best, “Though its permutations vary from time to time and culture to culture, the paganism in each of us is inclined to fabricate a manageable deity.[6] The fantastic nature of the gods and their situations fit better in a graphic novel (read, “comic book”).  Cartoons, though they reflect aspects of supernatural and natural worlds, are only hopeful of something other.

The biblical view is plainly mystical—the text is committed to an “other” sense of wonder and mystery.  The creation account is striking.  Genesis 1:1-2:3 is unique.  A “matter-of-fact” style dictates a form of composition little known in the ancient world: historiography.  Historiography reported events that occurred in space and time.  Deuteronomy 4 captures the point:

For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether such a great thing as this has ever happened or was ever heard of. . . . Know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath, there is no other.[7]

Yahweh had warned against the rise of imitators.[8] This should come as no surprise since “correspondence is founded on metaphor . . . and that metaphor is the basis of all language and thought, as it is of all religion . . . Deep within each of us, the need for correspondence remains . . . the need to perceive ourselves as belonging to the cosmos.”[9]

Myth in the ancient world was a substitute for the local community concerning their gods and life’s origin.  For most people groups, their creation stories gave direction for their priests to perform their ritual, magical ceremonies to maintain proper relations with the gods.  Evil was co-equal and co-eternal with their gods.  Time was cyclical; “Fate” controlled life.

Against the culture of the day, Genesis declares God is God alone.  He personally plans and oversees all events (Providence).  He controls all of life (Sovereignty).  He gives direction to human time (History).  He is unchanging giving certainty and security in the world (Immutable).  He directs all of life toward His purposes (Teleology).

When I read about Dickinson, Stowe, and Twain this week I felt a deep sadness.  My emotions are the same anytime I hear of folks yearning for truth, painful in their loss, settling for falsehood.  In contrast to the views of the writers mentioned above, hummingbirds are a result of God’s direct creation.  I suspect that if this little creature could speak she would say, “Listen to my wings; their sound is in praise of my Creator!”[10] So it is no surprise to hear Scripture so often compare those refusing to believe as “having no eyes to see, nor ears to hear.”[11] Amputation of The Truth, is simply rebellion against The Truth.[12]

Mystery shrouds human understanding, stands as a marker of Heaven, subjects accepted norms to One outside earth, and speaks best through Jesus who is “the mystery of godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16). [Originally written / posted at WarpandWoof.org 2 September 2009 ]


[1] Evanescence means disappearing, vanishing, or vaporous.

[2] As quoted by Roger Lundin in his review “Old Pieties No Longer Sufficed,” Books & Culture Sept/Oct 2009, 16-18.

[3] V. S. Ramachandran and S. Blakeslee. 1998. Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind (William Marrow).

[4] https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6146136.stm

[5] Among the many books that could be mentioned in promotion of such a view, consider R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Hendrickson, 2004); Walter Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (IVP, 2001); K. A. Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament, (Eerdmans, 2006).

[6] John H. Walton. 2001. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. (Zondervan): 55.

[7] Deuteronomy 4:32, 39 (ESV).

[8] Deuteronomy 4:15-19.

[9] “This is why something inside us responds spontaneously to metaphor, the heart of all poetry and, finally, of all language and all meaning.” Thomas Cahill. 1998. The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. (Doubleday): 49, emphasis mine.

[10] Indeed all creation is commanded to give praise to its Creator: Isaiah 44:23; 49:13.

[11] For example, Deuteronomy 29:4; Jeremiah 5:21-24; Ezekiel 12:2; Mark 8:17-18; Romans 11:8.

[12] “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).