Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 132

URC Staff Blogging

When people ask me what I love about being a pastor two things come immediately to mind: (1) the privilege of preparation and preaching and (2) the wonderful people with whom I get to serve.

We have a tremendous staff at University Reformed Church. Every person is godly, thoughtful, hardworking, and capable. They are also fun to be with.

I’ve asked several of our ministry staff to blog for me in the month of August. I know you’ll benefit from their wisdom, their unique interests, and their fresh voices (most of them new to most of you).

Here is the lineup coming your way this week and in the third week of August:

Jackie Knapp – Associate Campus Director

Pat Quinn – Director of Counseling Ministries

Jon Saunders – Campus Director

Dave Hinkley – Director of Children and Youth Ministries

Jason Helopoulos – Assistant Pastor

Ben Falconer – Associate Pastor

Monday Morning Humor

The Church Is Subordinate to the Word (And Not the Other Way Around)

Wilhelmus à Brakel:

If the Word of God is the only criterion by which we can determine a church to be the true church of God, then we must first acknowledge Scripture to be the Word of God before acknowledging the church to be the true church. Furthermore, we cannot receive the testimony of the church unless we acknowledge her to be the true church.

Thus, we do not believe the Word to be the Word of God because the church affirms it, but on the contrary, we believe the church to be the true church because the Word validates her as such. A house rests upon its foundation, and not the foundation upon the house. A construction is subordinate to its cause rather than the cause being subordinate to what it has constructed. (The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:29)

The Three R’s of Christian Engagement in the Culture War

I know, I know—you really don’t like the term “culture war.” The mission of the church is not to “reclaim” America. The growth of the church does not rely on political victories or societal approval. And we don’t want the people we are trying to reach to think we are at war with them. I understand the phrase sounds more aggressive, confrontational, and militaristic than we like.

But call it what you want—a culture war, a battle of ideas, an ideological struggle—there is no question we have deep division in America. The most obvious division right now concerns homosexuality. When Dan Cathy’s off-handed, rather ordinary comment in of support traditional marriage sends big city mayors out on their moral high horses wielding the coercive club of political power—and when the subsequent response from middle America is a record-breaking avalanche of support for Chick-fil-A—you know there is more than a skirmish afoot. I know every generation thinks they are facing unprecedented problems, but it really does feel like free speech, religious freedom, and the institution of marriage are up for grabs in our day.

Given this reality, how should Christians respond?

Let me suggest three R’s.

1. No Retreat. In the face of controversy and opposition, it’s always tempting to withdraw into friendlier confines. But working for the public good is part of loving our neighbors as ourselves. The pietistic impulse to simply focus on winning hearts and minds does not sufficiently appreciate the role of institutions and the importance of giving voice to truth in the public square. Conversely, the progressive impulse to stay quiet for fear that we’ll invalidate our witness is a misguided strategy to win over the world by letting them win. Either that or a disingenuous attempt to hide the fact they’ve already sold the ethical farm.

2. No Reversal. No matter the pressure, we must never deviate from the word of God to please the powers of the world (Rom. 12:1-2). This principle does not automatically determine the course of action in every sphere, for politics must sometimes be the art of compromise. But as far as our doctrinal commitments, our pulpit preaching, and our public values, we mustn’t give a single inch if that inch takes us away from the truth of Scripture (John 10:35). He who marries the spirit of the age becomes a widower in the next. The church is not built on theological novelty, and souls are not won by sophisticated ambiguity. Whoever is ashamed of Christ and his words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also will be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (Mark 8:38).

3. No Reviling. If this is a battle, then the followers of Christ must be a different kind of army. Even when our passions run high, our compassion must run deep. There is no place for triumphalism, cynicism, and settling scores. We must be happy, hopeful warriors.  When reviled, we must not revile or threaten in return, but entrust ourselves to him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:23). We must not be surprised by suffering (1 Peter 4:12). We must not hate when we are hated (Matt. 5:43-44). And when we rest peacefully at night may it not be because all men think well of us or because the culture reflects our values, but because our conscience is clear (1 Peter 3:16). In the fight against powers and principalities we must never go away, never give in, and never give up on love.

The Pitfalls and the Promise of Expository Preaching (3 of 3)

I want to conclude this short series in the same way Derek Thomas concludes his chapter, by commending to you the model of consecutive expository preaching. This is not the only way to ever preach. In fact, I try to do at least one preaching series a year that is expository but not consecutive. Still, on balance, I’m convinced that consecutive exposition (lectio continua) is the most effective method for building a healthy, vibrant, biblically faithful congregation.

Thomas notes six advantages to this approach. Although the ideas are largely his, the words are mine.

1. It introduces the congregation to the whole Bible. If all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable, then we would do well to travel through as much of it as possible.

2. It takes us to out of the way places in the Bible. There are chapters, verses, books (and sometimes whole Testaments!) of the Bible that will never be touched with topical preaching. Of course, most preachers won’t stick around long enough (or live long enough) to preach every verse in the Bible. But consecutive preaching gets you around the Bible more effectively than a series on marriage, parenting, and finances every single year.

3. It models for people how to read the Bible and that they can profitably read their Bibles all the way through. One of our chief aims as preachers must be to teach our people how to interpret the Bible for themselves.

4. It exposes a congregation to the full range of God’s interests and concerns. Instead of discerning what our people want to hear, we let Scripture decide what people need to hear. Over time, they’ll hear about divorce, incest, discipline, wrath, racism and a thousand others things they might not know are in the Bible. And when the congregation is hit between the eyes with conviction of sin or a meddling text, they can’t blame the preacher for riding hobby horses.

5. It can help preachers vary the style and mood of their preaching. We might think the consecutive exposition would make for less variety than topical preaching. But if the preacher is paying careful attention to the text, he will shape his sermon to fit the next text instead of picking a topic and then searching for supporting texts. Of course, the benefit of variety requires a suitable pace through longer books of the Bible.

6. It frees preachers from the tyranny of having to choose a text. Preachers can think ahead and plan ahead. They can see the forest and the trees. Consecutive exposition provides continuity from week to week and allows for a freedom that arises out of order.

My prayer, for myself and for the preachers reading this blog, is that we would be increasingly committed to expository preaching and increasingly skilled at actually doing what we say we are committed to.

The Hole in Our Holiness

A number of people have asked me when my book on holiness comes out. I’m happy to let you know that it comes out at the end of this month.

Justin Taylor has written a nice post about the book and includes the following interview he conducted with me. Two things you should know about this interview: 1) These video shots are not made for two tall people–our knees were a bit too close for comfort. 2) The interview took three times as along to record as it should have because Justin couldn’t stop laughing for some reason.

The Hole in Our Holiness from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Here is a peak at the Table of Contents:

1. Mind the Gap

2. The Reason for Redemption

3. Piety’s Pattern

4. The Impetus for the Imperatives

5. The Pleasures of God and the Possibility of Holiness

6. Spirit-powered, Gospel-driven, Faith-fueled Effort

7. Be Who You Are

8. Saints and Sexual Immorality

9. Abide and Obey

10. That All May See Your Progress

The Pitfalls and the Promise of Expository Preaching (2 of 3)

Sometimes our favorite preachers do not make the best homiletical models. And sometimes those most committed to expository preaching do not actually exposit the text.

Derek Thomas mentions four sermon types that fail to “display what is there.”

1. The “I want to tell you what is on my heart” sermon. The message may start with a text and end with a bang, but the preacher’s concerns come through more clearly than the passage’s concerns. The exposition is full of passion without precision. It’s “earnest but effervescent, relevant but un-related.” Even if the content is true, people are learning to treat the text carelessly and casually.

2. The “I have been reading Berkhof’s Systematic Theology” sermon. Instead of asking “What was the author’s original intent?” or asking God, “What do you want to say to your people?” we ask “What doctrine does this passage teach?” The result is that sermons get defensive and struggle to handle poetic and narrative genres.

3. The “I have a seminary education and I am determined to let you know that” sermon. These messages interest the intellect but fail to transform the heart or appeal to the affections. There may be much attention to Greek and Hebrew and textual variants, but little attention to connect the text to the lives of the simple and unlearned.

4. The “I am in such a hurry to apply this that you must forgive me for not showing you where I get this from” sermon. The preacher did his homework. It’s all there, but it’s just not where anyone can see it. Listeners feel like they are being lectured at with conclusions they haven’t been led to make on their own.

Tomorrow: Six advantages of consecutive expository preaching.

The Pitfalls and the Promise of Expository Preaching (1 of 3)

My favorite book on preaching that no one talks about is the Soli Deo Gloria edited volume Feed My Sheep, A Passionate Plea for Preaching. The book contains excellent essays by Boice, Piper, Ferguson, MacArthur, and many others. The most important 33 pages may be Derek Thomas’s chapter on expository preaching.

No doubt, most readers of this blog are proponents of expository preaching. And yet, it’s one thing to be a fan and another to be a practitioner. I wonder if more of us think we love expository preaching than actually do it well or know what it looks like.

In his chapter, Thomas outlines several bad homiletical models. Surprisingly, every model indicts our heroes. Thomas is quick to say that the model itself may not be the problem, but the use of it often is. Even our favorite preachers or favorite kinds of preaching carry with them great dangers, especially when they are held up as the way to do things. Thomas mentions four of these bad homiletical modes.

1. The Puritans. While Thomas loves the Puritans, he admits that “in the matter of consecutive expository preaching, the Puritans are not always a model for us to follow.” Surely, Joseph Caryl’s example of 24 years and 424 sermons in Job is rarely, if ever, worth emulating. We mustn’t take too long on one verse or stay too long in one book.

2. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He may have been the greatest English speaking preacher of the twentieth century, but that doesn’t make him the best model for preaching. Few of us have the necessary skills and gifts to unpack a single verse for six weeks and few have the right congregation to enjoy such exposition.

3. C.H. Spurgeon. Again, Spurgeon was undoubtedly a great preacher. And in theory he was an expositor. But in practice, “he could sometimes introduce matters into the sermon that did not properly emerge from the text, and he never engaged in consecutive expository preaching.” Reading Spurgeon’s sermons is a treat, but it also makes you say, “I could never do that.” Usually a good sign this man’s method is not the best model.

4. Redemptive-historical preaching. Thomas notes that the emphasis on context and the sweep of the salvation story is appropriate. And yet, “what often results from this hermeneutic has a sameness to it.” The mood and point of every sermon sounds the same. The fear of moralism guts the message of necessary application and imperative. A model which was breathtaking the first time around becomes predictable months later.

Tomorrow: Derek Thomas looks at four ways sermons fail to “display what is there.”

Monday Morning Humor

Geography never sounded so good. Just be sure to check the countries still exist before committing the first song to memory.

 

From Metro to Retro – Part 4 of 4

GUEST POST: Josh Blunt

In the previous three posts, I have been privileged to share some reflections on the way my training as a postmodern, seeker-focused church planter gave way to a rediscovery of an ordinary means of grace model.  As my congregation and I navigated those years, the final nail in the coffin of our original attractional bias was way in which it crippled us from handling disharmony, unclarity, and misbehavior through explicit teaching and firm governance.

Church discipline, unresolved conflict, clarifying gender roles, and authoritative church governance all add up to one thing:  ANTI-attraction.  When your main purpose is to get people in the door, it would seem that the less said about these topics, the better.  The reality is that modern, American culture (especially mainstream religious culture) has a passionate aversion to authority, conflict, countercultural stances, and meddling in people’s private lives.  If your goal is uninterrupted church growth, then every battle for church purity is lost simply because it was begun.

As our paradigm shift exposed mixed agendas and expectations within our congregation, unmentionables erupted.  Many who had been attracted when church might become anything balked when it actually became that thing.  The organizational fission that ensued was a product of an unintentional bait-and-switch, perpetrated by our early adherence to attractional church-growth methodology.

In our attempt to attract a crowd, we had been most things to most people.  In transforming a crowd into a governable congregation, we had yanked the rug out from under some folks and drawn a line in the sand.  Those with denominationally-conditioned expectations about religious culture and interpersonal ethics were appalled.  They thought church was for nice people who make one another feel nice and who perennially focus on what is nice.  I don’t entirely blame them for their surprise and disappointment – our methods had enabled them in that misunderstanding in exchange for their presence.

We slogged through church discipline cases and attempted to clarify our position on human sexuality, marriage, divorce, and family.  We brought long-standing conflicts and incompatible models of communication out into the light of scripture and mutual accountability.  We articulated a complimentarian understanding of gender roles based on our reading of scripture and the pleas of recently converted women for their husbands’ training and edification.  We began the work of establishing clear lines of accountability and discipline among our leaders and staff.

The result of all this decidedly repellent activity was that our congregation was masterfully pruned by the Holy Spirit.  Those who had an axe to grind with authority and discipline voted with their feet.  Those who worshipped at the altar of niceness headed for more pleasant pastures.  Those who savored growth and size left, ironically, because they disliked people leaving.  In the end, we were numerically diminished, bedraggled, sobered, chastened, and publicly defamed.

We were also a far more mature, infinitely more compelling, more deeply united, and vastly more gospel-centered group of people.  We were convinced that the Church was Christ’s Bride not ours, that she existed for his good pleasure rather than ours, and that our congregation was only a temporal and fleeting manifestation of something far more eternal and perfected.  To put it another way, we were a true church.

Gaining that cost us almost everything.  As givers exited, costs of salaries and facilities became mutually exclusive.  Our remaining assets were transferred to a larger church with plans for a fresh restart in our newly constructed facility.  Staff members, including me, were released to look for new ministries.  The remnant who had matured so much was dispersed to bless and edify other congregations.  What wasn’t lost was the transformation we had experienced.  Faithful saints had weathered the storm and matured as they discipled converts.  New believers had been tested by fire and weathered the storm as emerging leaders.  Pastors had learned invaluable lessons and been humbled by God’s unsearchable sovereignty over the work of their hands.

I still believe in church planting.  I would simply advise planters to start with an ordinary means of grace model.  This requires the strong support of a healthy, likeminded mother congregation throughout a slower, more labor-intensive maturation process.  It takes an intentional commitment to abandon fads and gimmicks, to hold fast to the Bible in both content and methodology.  And it takes a willingness to do the painstaking work of patient contextualization, continually discerning the fine line between inspired innovations and unbiblical shortcuts.  Christ promises to build his Church; if he promises to do the work, why would we trust our methodology over his?  Why would we employ novelties of the last two decades instead of methods that succeeded for the last two millennia?  I suggest we make simple the new sexy, and ordinary the new extraordinary.