Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

Home Archives for Mark McIntyre

The responsibility of standing in the pulpit

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

Preacher in the pulpit
Used by permission from Christian Images

As a follow-up to my last two posts (June 29 and July 1), I feel the need to offer some balance to avoid the impression that I condone anything that is said from the pulpit.

One of the things that I admire about Timothy Keller is that when he preaches, he takes into consideration that not everyone will agree with what he is saying. He acknowledges that some of his listeners have not gotten to the place where they accept Christian teaching on the topic at hand.

This is not to say that Tim Keller does not try to persuade his listeners to a particular point of view, but he does it in a way that acknowledges their minds and hearts and he does it with courtesy. I have heard him say a number of times something to the effect of, “you may not yet believe in this, but let me give you some things to think about as you consider this issue . . . ” This is neither manipulative or condescending to his listeners.

Contrasted to Mr. Keller’s approach, I have experienced attempts at persuasion from the pulpit that are not so gracious and accepting. When the preacher takes the attitude that those who disagree with him are simply wrong and need to be set right, very little of lasting value results from it.

This is not to say that we need to equivocate on what Scripture says. We need to present the clear teaching of Scripture as what it is and stand firm on it.

But, when we begin a statement with “Scripture clearly teaches that we should . . .” we better make sure that it is Scripture and not our own particular interpretation that we are standing on.

For example, it is clear from Scripture that we are called to care for widows and orphans (James 1:27), but we may disagree on the best method of doing it. We are called to care for the poor in our community, but may have differing philosophies on the role of government in providing for the poor.

I would encourage pastors (or anyone in a teaching ministry) to make it OK for people to not arrive at the same conclusion that you are proclaiming from the pulpit. You need to give them time and space to work through the data.

When a preacher feels the need to push people toward a particular conclusion, he may demonstrate contempt for the listeners and an insensitivity to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps this is the central issue. Does the pastor trust God enough to present the data of Scripture and allow the Holy Spirit to bring people to the right conclusion?

As church leaders we must keep in mind whose is the responsibility to build the church. It is not the pastor’s responsibility. It is not the elders’ responsibility. It is not the preacher’s responsibility. It is Christ’s and Christ’s alone (Matthew 16:18).

Offering some clarification

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

ClarificationI want to offer some clarification about my previous post. My intent was not to criticize my friends for being upset about what was said in the sermon. There was nothing inherently wrong with feeling uncomfortable about a choice of words used in the pulpit.

None of us comes to the church as a blank slate, even those of us who grew up in the church. We have political and social opinions that are formed in us through education, society and our own reasoning. So in the church and in the pulpit we are going to encounter thoughts and ideas with which we do not agree. It is what it is and this cannot be avoided unless we are interested in becoming Stepford Christians.

We all have opinions but not all of them are correct and we need to be willing to have our opinions challenged. This is why the Apostle Paul tells us that we are in need of transformation in our thinking (Rom. 12:1-2). We are in need of transformation in our thinking because none of us has a perfect understanding of the gospel, nor do we fully understand the implications of the gospel.

To better understand the gospel involves a process of seeing how deep the flaws in our thinking and behavior go. If I think that I have arrived at full understanding, it only proves that I have a long way to go.

A deepening understanding of the gospel is part of fulfilling the first of the two great commands (Matt. 22:37). As we grow in our love of God we increasingly see our need of grace and transformation. As a result, we should be increasingly thankful for God’s provision in Jesus Christ.

A deepening understanding of the implications of the gospel is part of fulfilling the second great command (Matt. 22:39). Once we understand our own need of grace, we are more likely to offer that grace to others. Once we understand how deeply we are loved by God, on the basis of that love we can extend love to others.

All this, admittedly, is easier said than done.

Because none of us are blank slates, we come to the church with differences in our thinking. The larger the church, the more differences there will be. As soon as you have more than one person in the group, there are going to be disagreements.

My point was not to chide those who disagreed with the pastor, but to encourage them to look on the discomfort in a new light.

The discomfort can be used by God to challenge us at our core.

When I am angry, it is almost always because I am inconvenienced or I feel disrespected. There have been a few times in my life when my anger had a righteous component to it, but even in those times it was tainted by selfishness.

So when someone says something that upsets me, I should take the opportunity to think through why it upsets me. What is it about the situation that is making me upset? Usually, too much of my angst does not come from a good place.

In the context of the church, and especially in the sermon, when I encounter something that makes me feel uncomfortable, a healthy reaction involves reflection on Scripture combined with introspection. If I combine these two, my response to the discomfort will be measured and seasoned with grace. I can then own where I need correction and then, and only then, lovingly offer correction to others.

The point I intended to make was that we need to find some level of comfort in being uncomfortable. The church should be the shining example of bringing unity out of diversity.

It is a shame that using the word “diversity” may bring us back to where we were at the beginning of my last post.

On the need for a prophetic voice

Posted on Written by 2 Comments

Prophetic VoiceSome days I feel like I need to duct tape my head so that when it explodes, the doctors can find all the pieces and put me back together again. Today is one of those days but the root cause might surprise you.

Over the last few days fellow church members that I know and love have gotten their knickers in a twist over something our pastor said on Sunday. Or more specifically, they got upset over a term that our pastor used because it often carries political baggage.

The term in question was “social justice.” And the point made was that the church cannot isolate itself from society and pretend that injustice is not happening. We cannot pretend that everyone is treated well. We cannot close our eyes and be willfully blind.

To make sure that we better understood where he was coming from, the pastor made the point that the “social gospel” of the early 20th Century was theologically and morally bankrupt and has nothing to offer. He was certainly not coaxing us to abandon our theologically conservative positions. The pastor was not using “social justice” as  a code word for abandoning the Westminster Confession and telling everyone that they go to heaven regardless of belief or practice.

But regardless of the attempts at providing context for the statement, some were offended and are struggling to get past it.

The fact that there was so much tension over this really bothered me over the last few days. It is hard for me to see friends be upset. But it did start me thinking.

The danger, in our individualistic, me centered, world is that I can go to hear a sermon with the primary intent of evaluating how much of it I agree with. Did the pastor get the nuanced meaning of the Greek word right? Did he accurately present the historical context? Did the preacher . . . ?

Certainly there must be agreement on the central tenets of Christianity. There are doctrines on which we cannot compromise. I’m not talking about wiggling on the essentials of Christianity. But there is much room for discussion about the implications of those core beliefs and what it should look like to live out the Christian life in this place, at this time.

I’m not sure how much I would profit from sitting under a preacher with whom I nearly always agree. I don’t need a pastor to reinforce me in my blind spots or build me up where I already have understanding.

As I have gotten older, I find that my greater need is for a preacher to challenge me to go deeper into Scripture. I need the pastor to be used by God to break through my hard head and hard heart. I need a preacher that will say what Scripture says and be willing to call me on my nonsense. And I need a preacher that will challenge me on the bits of my culture that I have accepted which are in conflict with Biblical principles.

The bottom line is that I need a prophetic voice in my life. So, I guess I’m OK with my pastor making me feel uncomfortable. But I acknowledge that in this I may be in a minority.

But this brings out a broader issue. The church is a gathering of a people redeemed by Jesus Christ regardless of ethnic identity, political affiliation or economic stature. A healthy church should have a bunch of people that don’t look or think like me.

If you don’t think this is true, take a look at the early church. One of the disciples was a terrorist against Rome and another a roman collaborator. There were educated Pharisees being instructed by fishermen. Women were given prominence as the first to whom the resurrected Jesus showed himself. There were gentiles worshiping with Jews. The early church was a seriously crazy blending of very different people.

The church broke every social norm by allowing the gospel to speak into all lives and change people’s hearts and minds.

So let’s stop listening to sermons with the focus on finding the bits with which we cannot agree. Let’s not live out the joke about having “roast pastor” for dinner on Sunday.

Let’s listen to sermons with the intent of focusing on Scripture and being willing to hear what God has to say to us.

But while we listen, we must allow Scripture and not our own understanding to be the final judge.

And we need to learn to be OK with a little discomfort. Cleaning a wound is usually painful.

Forensic Faith – A new book from J. Warner Wallace

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

Forensic FaithThe brown envelope on my desk was not expected. Upon picking it up, it was obvious that it contained a book (almost always a good thing). That book turned out to be the latest book from J. Warner Wallace and it is entitled Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith. It was indeed a good thing.

I have reviewed Mr. Wallace’s earlier editions in this series entitled, Cold Case Christianity and God’s Crime Scene so am familiar with and enjoy the author’s style. Like his two previous books, Wallace mixes in stories from his experience as a police detective to illustrate the points he makes through the book.

In Cold Case, Wallace demonstrates how the skills of a detective can be used to evaluate the claims of Christianity and the reliability of the Gospel Accounts. In God’s Crime Scene, he examines the evidence for a divinely created universe. I found both books to be helpful and enjoyable to read.

This book focuses more on the process of presenting the evidence in support of Christianity. We are called to make disciples and to fulfill that call, we need to be able to present the evidence in support of our belief.

I was especially challenged by the first chapter where Wallace encourages his readers to embrace their calling as Christian Case Makers. In that chapter, he points out that Jesus challenges his followers to use our minds when he gave us the Two Great Commands in Matthew 22:37-38. Wallace notes that Jesus is quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5 but Jesus changed one word in his quotation. He substituted the word “mind” for the word “strength” in the original. Wallace writes:

“All the gospel authors agree that Jesus used the word ‘mind’ in His summary of [Deuteronomy 6:5] (instead of the word ‘strength’). The Greek word used by these authors is dianoia: a word used to describe our ‘minds,’ our ‘understanding,’ or our ‘intelligence.’ Here in Matthew’s gospel, the word is used to describe the ‘place where thinking occurs.’ Jesus’ intentional word exchange raises the bar for us as Christians. We are not only to love God with all our heart, soul and might, but we are also commanded to use our mind and our intelligence to understand the truth of Christianity.”

Using our minds is not optional. Contrary to those who caricature Christians as those who blindly accept the unbelievable, we are called to use our minds to weigh the evidence and make a decision.

If you are at all interested in learning to present the claims of Christ to others, this is a book that would be worth reading. Wallace’s writing style is engaging and he presents concepts clearly. I also like that whenever he uses a technical term, he includes a side bar explaining the term.

This is a book that will remain on shelf because it is one that I will read again.

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama