Preaching and a Preacher's Growth

"I give you the motto, 'Go forward.' Go forward in personal attainments, forward in gifts and in grace, forward in fitness for the work, and forward in conformity to the image of Jesus...If there be any brother here who thinks he can preach as well as he should, I would advise him to leave off altogether." ~ Charles Spurgeon

I am in a preaching lab class at my seminary, RTS Atlanta, and my professor sent a great blog post out to the class about how preachers should evaluate their preaching. It is a great article that I would recommend anyone reading, even those who have no plans of ever preaching. If you are reading this and you are not a preacher, nor do you have any plans to become one, I do not write this here to give you a means by which to criticize your pastor but quite the contrary. I write this so you can know how to pray for your pastor and his preaching and so you can know what he pours into it when he does it in a godly, biblical manor. No preacher gets all this right all the time (I preached at my church this past Sunday and found this article both encouraging and quite convicting), which is why he needs your prayer for his preaching.

The article's major points are the following:

• Did I preach as God's servant? The author summarizes, "Evaluate your sermons for any hint that you stood in the pulpit as a lord and savior instead of a humble servant and messenger whose authority comes solely from God."
• Did I preach to build God's Church? The author summarizes, "When evaluating your preaching, ask yourself whether you preached with a burning love for God which made you long to see His church built up on earth. God loves His church with an everlasting love. If you love God, your preaching must be full of love for God’s church."
• Did I preach Christ as the only foundation? The author states, "Christ is everything to the believer: our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ is not only the door into salvation; He is the entire road on which we must travel to glory."
• Did I build my sermon with the precious materials of Reformed experiential preaching? He, again, summarizes, "The wisdom of the Scriptures is the only material worthy of use in God’s holy temple. Therefore, do not build your sermons with the materials of man which will perish in God’s flaming glory."
• Did I preach for the Master's reward? He states, "Though you and your hearers may have long forgotten the specifics of what you preached, the Lord will judge every sermon. Every sermon will have one of two outcomes on Judgment Day: it may be found precious in God’s sight and receive His approbation, or it will be judged unworthy and the fire of God’s glory will consume it."

Those are the major points of this blog post but there is some great content in between them. I recommend reading the whole thing. And, remember, read with the heart wanting to know how to pray for your pastor, not judge his sermons for all of the above questions are attitudes of the heart that only he and God can know fully.

By His Grace,

Taylor

Morality, God and the "New Atheism"

I have written in the past in several places (like here and here) about faith in the view of atheism. Most of my writing, however, was been in the arena of science. Recently, on Biola Magazine, Craig Hazen wrote a good article on the idea of morality and the "new atheism", which does not specifically mention faith but it does highlight that atheists "began embracing basic morality as some sort of natural feature of the physical universe." This takes faith (something most ardently claim not to rely on), just as it does to accept the Laws of Physics as a "given". Of course, the article makes more points than that and it is well worth reading. Below is a sample of the article:

It’s been fascinating to watch the very vocal and prolific new atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, make a case for objective morality. The phrase “objective morality” is a way of indicating that some behaviors are right (truth telling, kindness, tolerance) and some behaviors are wrong (rape, murder, racism) — for real. Morality is not just a matter of personal preference and choice (akin to liking peanuts better than almonds), but rather laws that are real and true and binding no matter what one thinks about them or whether one chooses to follow them.

The reason it has been fun to watch the new atheists defend this idea is because atheists of an earlier generation (such as J.L. Mackie and Bertrand Russell) thought it folly to do so. Classic atheists from the mid-20th century were very reluctant to grant that there was an objective moral law because they saw that it was just too compelling for believers to take the easy step from the moral law to God who was the “moral law giver.” Accepting a real objective moral law would be giving far, far too much ground to the Christians and other theists.
...
The primary technique the new atheists have adopted for dealing with the issue of the origin or grounding of the moral law is obfuscation. The new atheists are very fond of saying, “We don’t need God to be good.” Indeed, they often say that atheists, agnostics and skeptics often lead more wholesome lives than lifelong professing Christians. Now, theists should not be fooled by this. Our response should be, “Of course you don’t need God to be good — we’ve never claimed that you do.” You see, it is not knowledge (epistemology) of the moral law that is a problem — after all, the Bible teaches that this law is written on every human heart. Rather, the daunting problem for the new atheist is the nature and source (ontology) of the moral law.

I recommend you read the rest of the article and then start asking some tough, uncomfortable questions about morality.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Take Not Your Name From the Evening

Yesterday's Morning and Evening evening devotional is really great so I just wanted to share if with everyone. Read below and may it bless your soul.

         “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
         — Genesis 1:5

The evening was “darkness” and the morning was “light,” and yet the two together are called by the name that is given to the light alone! This is somewhat remarkable, but it has an exact analogy in spiritual experience. In every believer there is darkness and light, and yet he is not to be named a sinner because there is sin in him, but he is to be named a saint because he possesses some degree of holiness. This will be a most comforting thought to those who are mourning their infirmities, and who ask, “Can I be a child of God while there is so much darkness in me?” Yes; for you, like the day, take not your name from the evening, but from the morning; and you are spoken of in the word of God as if you were even now perfectly holy as you will be soon. You are called the child of light, though there is darkness in you still. You are named after what is the predominating quality in the sight of God, which will one day be the only principle remaining. Observe that the evening comes first. Naturally we are darkness first in order of time, and the gloom is often first in our mournful apprehension, driving us to cry out in deep humiliation, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” The place of the morning is second, it dawns when grace overcomes nature. It is a blessed aphorism of John Bunyan, “That which is last, lasts for ever.” That which is first, yields in due season to the last; but nothing comes after the last. So that though you are naturally darkness, when once you become light in the Lord, there is no evening to follow; “thy sun shall no more go down.” The first day in this life is an evening and a morning; but the second day, when we shall be with God, for ever, shall be a day with no evening, but one, sacred, high, eternal noon.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Book Review: "The Practice of the Presence of God" by Brother Lawrence

"[T]hey want to make it understood that they are not at all without God, since they certainly believe there is some sort of God, whom they even recognize as creator of heaven and earth, as do the Turks; but as for Jesus Christ, they only know that he is and hold nothing concerning him nor his doctrine." ~ Pierre Viret, Instruction Chrétienne (1564)

The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence is considered a classic of Christian devotional literature. I had never read it until recently when I took a philosophy class at my seminary. One of the major assignments for the class was to take a piece of Christian devotional literature and analyze it with respect to the philosophical climate in which the author wrote. Christian thinking about the faith and the relationship between faith and life unavoidably reflects the intellectual climate of its time period. If only because thinking takes place in human language, concepts and idioms, even the most careful Christian writers have had to wrestle with uncritically adopting the world’s categories, assumptions and values at the very heart of their devotional lives. My job in this assignment was to see how Brother Lawrence fared in managing the philosophical currents of his age along Biblical lines.

I was surprised at what I found when I read this work. I had never heard anything bad about it, so I assumed I was going to read a fairly decent piece of devotional literature. However, when I read it the one thought that kept coming back to my mind was similar to Viret's quote above--this work by Brother Lawrence could have been written by anyone who claims to "believe in God" and yet does not hold to any other tenant of orthodox Christianity. Now, as I state in my essay, I must admit that one's ability to get a full understanding of Lawrence's theology is hindered by the fact that this work is a collection of letters and recalled conversations with Lawrence. That means we have only half the conversation (Lawrence's letters only) and second-hand information (conversations recalled by Abbot Joseph de Beaufort). That does limit the ability to understand Lawrence's theology and philosophical view. However, in this work there is no mention of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the gospel. Worse yet, Brother Lawrence seemed to believe in a method of salvation that was to a large degree dependent on his works. So even if we cannot fully know Lawrence's theology, what is in this work could be damaging to someone who does not read it critically. Needless to say, I would not recommend this book to anyone as a devotional literature.

If you are interested in reading my thoughts and critique of this work, the essay can be found in my shared Google Docs.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Who Was Adam?

"Collectively, the consensus that emerges from this work indicates that humanity originated recently (about 100,000 years ago) from East Africa (near the location theologians ascribed to the Garden of Eden) from a small population. Amazingly, studies using mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA markers trace humanity’s origin back to a single man and woman." ~ Dr. Fazale ("Fuz") Rana, "A Burgoo of Human Origin Discoveries"

Today I responded to a post on the blog of a friend of a friend: Reflections on God's Word. In this post the author, Maria, talks about the move by some Christians, Francis Collins in this case, to dismiss Adam and Eve as historical figures. Dr. Collins, of the Human Genome Project, has looked at the genetic data and concluded that he believes Adam and Eve were not historical. Maria proceeds to flesh out the biblical implications of this in her post and points out why a historical Adam and Eve are important to orthodox Christian doctrine. Here is a portion of what she said:

...Collins has concluded from this study, as reported in a book he recently co-authored (The Language of Science and Faith), that “Adam & Eve as the literal first couple and ancestors of all humans do not fit the evidence”.

This assumption is disturbing on two accounts: First of all, those who support the findings and support theistic evolution minimize the impact of their assertions.  Second and more fraught with potential harm, is the implication for much of Biblical Theology and directly the trustworthiness of the Bible.  I will address the second of these issues.

The author of the “Christianity Today” article, Richard Ostling, correctly articulates what is at stake:

• Humans’ unique status as image bearers of God

• The doctrine of original sin and the fall

• The genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3

• Jesus’ teaching that all of the Old Testament points to Him (Luke 24)

• Paul’s teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ

This issue is different from the debate among evangelical Christians who argue Old Earth vs. Young Earth.  In that arena, it is clearer that there are at least two possible interpretations.  The Bible refers to days (yowm) spent in creating the world.  In Hebrew ‘yowm/Strongs H3117’ can mean 24 hours, a year or a long period of time.  So the creation account is open to discussion without raising the trustworthiness of the Bible as an issue.

But if there is not a literal and historical Adam, then here are the implications:

• God did NOT decide as a Trinitarian unit to make man in His image, male and female (Gen 1:27)

• God did NOT have a conversation with Adam in Gen 2:16-17

• Eve did NOT talk with Satan as serpent in Gen 3:1-5

• Eve did NOT sin in Gen 3:6

• No sudden guilt, shame and cover-up happened in Gen 3:7

• No face-to-face encounter between God and the first couple took place in Gen 3:8-9

• Adam & Eve did not try to pass the buck, playing the blame game in Gen 3:11-13

• Gospel Hope was not first preached in Gen 3:15

• No penalty for sin was announced in Gen 3:16-19, thereby explaining what is wrong with our world

...

You should go read the rest of her post here. It is a good biblical and philosophical defense of the trustworthiness of God's Word and Adam as a historical figure. Go ahead, go read it and then come back here..........

Now that you are back, I would like to share with you how I responded to her post. I thought it appropriate and necessary to respond from the scientific side of things as well. I wanted Maria, and all her readers, to know that it is Dr. Collins' interpretation of the data that is against a historical Adam, but his interpretation is not the only valid interpretation (as my quote in the beginning points out). Here is what I said:

Great article, I was directed here by a mutual friend–Adam Powers. I do not want to minimize the great points you made above but I also wanted to give a little perspective on Dr. Collins’ statement/opinion. I hope that this will encourage you in that you not only make a good Biblical and philosophical argument but that the scientific data are not against you.

Dr. Collins is truly a Christian, I believe, though I disagree with him about theistic evolution. One thing we must keep in mind with people like Collins who look at the genetic evidence is that they are looking at it with evolutionary presuppositions already in mind.

There are many studies that have emerged recently (like these: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7181/abs/nature06611.html, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1100.abstract, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5323/176.short) that indicate the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of all humans can be traced back to one single sequence on the order of about 100,000 years ago. (We all get our mtDNA from our mothers only so even though I am a male my mtDNA still came from only my mother.) Other work done on the Y chromosome (Y-c) shows that all males can be traced back to a single Y-c (studies like this one: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6555/abs/378379a0.html) on the order of about 60,000 years ago.

Collins looks at this data and, because of his evolutionary presuppositions, thinks that this one sequence was just the “one lucky mother” whose DNA was passed on, while all the other DNA from the first “evolved” females died out. He interprets the Y-c data the same way. However, there is no evidence to favor this interpretation over one that looks at the data and says, “All humanity can be traced back to a single man and a single woman.” The second interpretation is simply much more difficult for Collins to fit into his evolutionary presuppositions, so he chooses the first. It is not the data that demands Christians throw out the idea of a historical Adam, it is Collins’ interpretation of it based on his presuppositions. The data equally support a historical Adam and Eve interpretation.

One might look at the dates and think, “Wait, how could the historical Eve be 100,000 years ago and the historical Adam be 60,000 years ago?” Scientists have asked a similar question. You might hear a geneticist say, “Did Adam know Eve?” and by that he means, “Did the woman who we get our mtDNA from know the man we get our Y-c from?” I think the Bible can easily fit well with this data. For us men, biblically who is the oldest male ancestor we could possibly trace our lineage back to? You might be tempted to say, “Adam” but is that really right? Actually, the oldest male we could possibly trace the Y-c back to is Noah. Why? Because of what is called a “population bottle neck”–the world’s population dropped to 8 people and then started over again. Noah and his three sons all had the same Y-c so there is no way to trace the Y-c beyond Noah farther back to anyone else. However, since it is reasonable to assume that Noah’s wife and his sons' three wives came from four different lineages, geneticists can trace the mtDNA beyond Noah. So, of course the dates would be different. In fact, the Bible (indirectly) predicts that these dates would be different!

Now, I am not trying to start an argument on your blog about the length of creation days (as you said, that can be debated without questioning the trustworthiness of the Bible) or whether or not the biblical genealogies are complete (which I also think can be debated without questioning the trustworthiness of the Bible). What I am trying to do is show that Collins’ interpretation of the data is not the only valid interpretation. It is equally valid, and I think more supportable, to say that human origins can be traced back to one man and one woman–Adam and Eve. So, far from ruling out a historical Adam, the genetic evidence supports it as one of the valid interpretations of the data.

I would like to suggest a book to those who would like to do more research on this topic: Who Was Adam? by Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Frazale Rana. It is an excellent resource by two men whose intellect far exceeds my own that dives deep into the scientific data and shows how modern discoveries do not discount and actually support a historical Adam (contra Dr. Collins).

By His Grace,
Taylor