There was a report in The Times last week about what occupations people trust the most, surprisingly hairdressers came out on top as the most trusted occupation, perhaps less surprisingly estate agents and lawyers faired less well in the poll.
However the interesting thing for me was that for the first time ever scientists were more trusted than members of the clergy. So what you may think but actually it is a pretty big deal weather we realise it or not.
Firstly it seems staggering to me that the clergy have gotten a reputation as people who dont tell the truth, as people who can't be trusted. There are a lot of things feeding into this I suspect, growing secularism means that the clergy no longer have the place they once had and things like the child sexual abuse scandal have understandably eroded people's trust in the clergy.
However what impact does this have when we stand up to preach? If people in the pew are wondering if this man is trustworthy then how will our message be received? At best it will be received as well that was nice but can you trust it? At worst....it will be received as a lie. If thats what the people in the pew who know us think imagine what the outsider will think of us.
Secondly and more worryingly for me is the impact this has when people like Richard Dawkins speak on issues of religion and morality in the media. We may not care to accept it but yet more people trust scientists than trust ministers, so if Dawkins or Brian Cox comes out and says something more people are ready to believe it than not. This then feeds into the idea that science is the only infallible discipline in the universe, only when science has explained something do we fully understand it.
So what are we going to do? Well primarily ministers have to become known again as people who can be relied upon to tell the truth, people who can be trusted. Only when we have regained the public trust can we start to fight the war. Until that point the perception will be that you can't trust ministers and what they say. Let us as Christians learn to live increasingly sanctified God glorifying lives.
Sunday, 31 January 2016
Monday, 16 March 2015
How Then Shall We Live?
What is the goal of good preaching? What should a great sermon be? Should it be an act of great oratory? Should it be full of passion and verve? Should it touch us emotionally? Should it reach us logically?
Ideally a great sermon would be all of the above, but fundamentally what should a great sermon do? It should cause us to ask the question how then should I live? Given what I have heard from God's revealed word how should I alter my life? How should I change my life so that it is more conformed to the image of God's son Jesus Christ?
Yet as I reflect on nearly eight years preaching periodically I think this is still the thing I struggle with most...how do I apply this passage to people who are listening? How does the exegesis of this passage help the lady in the pew struggling with infertility? How does the exegesis of this passage help the man struggling with envy? This is difficult because it requires us to know the people we are preaching to, to make an accurate application we need to know the struggles of the people, the pains of the people, the hurts of the people.
Of course we can make general applications of the "now go and do likewise" variety, but yet in order to make application which is real and heartfelt we must know the people. We must never use the pulpit as a battering ram to hammer someone who has confided in us but yet the word of God needs to be applied. For it to be applied effectively it requires knowledge of the people, knowledge of their struggles and knowledge of the situations which they find themselves in. In short it requires us as preachers to love the people we are preaching too, it requires us to desire not that people think we are a great orator, a passionate speaker or an intellectual giant but that we desire that people come away from our sermons thinking in light of todays sermon i really shouldn't gossip about that women in work, in light of todays sermon i really don't need to spend all those extra hours in work.
What makes a great sermon, of course it should be logical, of course it should be delivered with passion, of course it should be intellectually stimulating, but above all a great sermon should cause us to ask how then should I live in light of God's revelation to me? How should my life be changed and moulded by what I heard today?
Ideally a great sermon would be all of the above, but fundamentally what should a great sermon do? It should cause us to ask the question how then should I live? Given what I have heard from God's revealed word how should I alter my life? How should I change my life so that it is more conformed to the image of God's son Jesus Christ?
Yet as I reflect on nearly eight years preaching periodically I think this is still the thing I struggle with most...how do I apply this passage to people who are listening? How does the exegesis of this passage help the lady in the pew struggling with infertility? How does the exegesis of this passage help the man struggling with envy? This is difficult because it requires us to know the people we are preaching to, to make an accurate application we need to know the struggles of the people, the pains of the people, the hurts of the people.
Of course we can make general applications of the "now go and do likewise" variety, but yet in order to make application which is real and heartfelt we must know the people. We must never use the pulpit as a battering ram to hammer someone who has confided in us but yet the word of God needs to be applied. For it to be applied effectively it requires knowledge of the people, knowledge of their struggles and knowledge of the situations which they find themselves in. In short it requires us as preachers to love the people we are preaching too, it requires us to desire not that people think we are a great orator, a passionate speaker or an intellectual giant but that we desire that people come away from our sermons thinking in light of todays sermon i really shouldn't gossip about that women in work, in light of todays sermon i really don't need to spend all those extra hours in work.
What makes a great sermon, of course it should be logical, of course it should be delivered with passion, of course it should be intellectually stimulating, but above all a great sermon should cause us to ask how then should I live in light of God's revelation to me? How should my life be changed and moulded by what I heard today?
Tuesday, 10 February 2015
A Most Prized Doctrine?
If i asked you tonight what the most prized doctrine of your faith was, what would you say? God, salvation, man? If you had asked me the same questions a few years ago I think i probably would have had to first clarify what you meant by doctrine and then probably would have vehemently stuck to salvation being the most key doctrine of my faith.
But yet over the past three years my opinion has changed...three years spent studying have convinced me that the most important doctrine of my faith is not salvation, its not my doctrine of God, its not my doctrine of man but my doctrine of scripture.
This may seem like a radical statement and may lead some of you to think that I have lost all common sense I may or may not have had but allow me to explain. I have come to the conclusion that our doctrine of scripture underpins every other doctrine we have:
GOD: Fundamentally how can we know what God is like if he has not revealed himself to us in scripture? Sure we have general revelation such as the Psalmist speaks of in Psalm 8, but yet as Paul reminds us that revelation on its own leaves men without excuse but yet it can never lead to salvation.
I have seen some spectacular sights in my time, times when nature has taken my breath away, Table Mountain in South Africa being probably the most notable, and yet Table Mountain in all its splendour can't reveal God's holiness to me, it can't reveal God's plan of salvation, it can only reveal a part of God to me. Yet in Scripture we have God revealed in so much more detail (and yet amazingly we still only scratch the surface of who God is).
MAN: How do we explain evil in the world? Is God just mean and capricious? Are some people just bad while others seek to live a good life? In scripture we get the most complete doctrine of man, that they are made in the image of God, that they are fallen and sinful. That they are made for a purpose. None of this is accessible purely from looking at a man or woman on the street.
SALVATION: Only in scripture is it revealed to me how I as a sinful fallen human being can be made right with this God. I can't figure this out on my own, left to my own devices I have no hope of right relationship with God. Yet thats why the gospel is such good news because it does hold out that hope of relationship restored.
Why does all this matter though? Well everywhere we look, even in many evangelical churches the doctrine of scripture is under attack:
Paul didn't really mean that.
That was in the Old Testament when people related to God in a different way.
There are cultural differences here that we just can't appreciate.
Yet all of this undermines any of the doctrines which we hold to be true, because only as God has revealed Himself to us in His word can we be sure that we are building on solid ground. If we remove the stability of God's revelation we are in danger of building our whole theology on jelly, with insecure foundations which will one day give way.
Whats the most important doctrine to me? My doctrine of scripture because everything else is built upon that...
Sunday, 25 January 2015
The Economics Of Manna
Whilst listening to Sunday Sequence on Radio Ulster this morning there was a discussion around the World Economic Forum which is meeting in Davos this week. The main thrust of the report was that the most wealthy 80 people in the world have more money than the bottom 50%.
During the course of the discussion one of the contributors who was there to provide the Theological angle said that the story of Manna in the wilderness teaches us a great economic lesson. The children of Israel are told to gather the amount of Manna they need for the day and if they collected more then it rotted. If you have too much money gathered into the hands of a few people then eventually it will rot. This is an interesting theory but is it an accurate reading of the story of the Manna in the wilderness?
To be honest I think this is a prime example of Isogesis rather than exegesis, of reading a meaning you want to find into a text rather than letting the text speak for itself. The whole point of the story of the Manna in the wilderness is not to teach us an economic lesson, the whole point of the story of the Manna in the wilderness is to teach us to trust in God to provide for us.
The people are grumbling, wishing for a return to slavery in Egypt where they at least had food to eat, the grumble against Moses and against God. God therefore seeks to test them seeing if they will indeed listen to Him and follow His instruction or will they continue to gather more bread than they need? Will they trust God even in situations which seem so unpromising?
As we look out into the world today there are so many situations that seem unpromising, be it the rise of secularism within our own culture, the rise of IS in the Middle East. So much in which there seems no hope but yet will we trust God today to provide for our needs? Or will we look to ourselves?
The story of the Manna then exists not as an economic lesson but as a lesson to trust God, trust in His provision for us and his sovereignty over His creation
Sunday, 18 May 2014
What does Thomas Jefferson have to do with Facebook?
It may seem like a strange question to ask what links a U.S. President to a medium of communication which was invented some 200 years after his death but Thomas Jefferson is linked to social media in a clear way….selection.
Recently those of you who have been on Facebook will have spotted this new trend where people will nominate each other to share their favourite Bible Verse and then nominate someone else who will share theirs and so on… I suppose its kind of a sanctified chain mail.
Thomas Jefferson had much the same idea when he was president and commissioned a special edition of the bible to be printed. With one correction, he took a razor blade and cut out all the bits of the bible he didn’t like. So naturally most of the Old Testament with its references to a God of judgement were gone, many of Paul’s letters were gone, anything Jefferson didn’t like was gone.
Essentially when we are selecting favourite verses of Scripture we are saying much the same thing as Jefferson did, perhaps not intentionally but we are doing it anyway. We are saying I like this bit but not that bit, this bit about God’s love speaks to me but this bit about God’s purity doesn’t.
Recently those of you who have been on Facebook will have spotted this new trend where people will nominate each other to share their favourite Bible Verse and then nominate someone else who will share theirs and so on… I suppose its kind of a sanctified chain mail.
Thomas Jefferson had much the same idea when he was president and commissioned a special edition of the bible to be printed. With one correction, he took a razor blade and cut out all the bits of the bible he didn’t like. So naturally most of the Old Testament with its references to a God of judgement were gone, many of Paul’s letters were gone, anything Jefferson didn’t like was gone.
Essentially when we are selecting favourite verses of Scripture we are saying much the same thing as Jefferson did, perhaps not intentionally but we are doing it anyway. We are saying I like this bit but not that bit, this bit about God’s love speaks to me but this bit about God’s purity doesn’t.
The reason this is key for us to think about is because “all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). All of the bible including the bits we may not like or the bits we find difficult is the word of God, is God communicating something of His character and nature to us.
If we lose our hold on the doctrine of scripture then all of our other doctrines really fall by the wayside as well, how can we be sure of our doctrine of man if we don’t take Genesis 1-3 seriously, how can we be sure of God’s plan of redemption, how can we be sure our doctrine of God is right if we don’t accept God’s revelation of Himself to us? If we lose sight of the importance of the doctrine of scripture then all of our other doctrines readily fall apart from there.
I’m not saying that sharing scripture and clogging up people’s news feeds with scripture is nessecarily a bad thing but I would question what it says about our doctrine of scripture? Are we valuing certain passages over and against another, when the truth is that all of scripture has been given to us for our benefit for our edification and as part of God’s revelation of himself to us?
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Saving Our Giants
Whilst reading the paper today in a post exam haze, the Independent seeing as you asked, I came across two stories which immediately captured my attention.
The first concerns the Independent's Christmas appeal this year which focuses on the very worthy cause of protecting the Elephants in the wild. They are being hunted almost to the point of extinction by men bent on getting their ivory for the world markets. This they cry is an outrage which cannot be allowed to go on...
But is it? This is the same newspaper which at every turn chooses to push an agenda of evolution over intelligent design. Pushing this argument to it's natural limit, and over simplifying which I am aware I am doing but for effect, there is no reason to save the elephant. They have not kept pace with the evolutionary developments of man and they are therefore fair game. This same argument could be applied to any animal in the world which is endangered. If evolution is true and correct, then this process is unstoppable and the elephant will either evolve to deal with the threat which man poses or else they will die off either way it doesn't matter.
The rub is that it does matter though, the rub is that we know as human beings we shouldn't be treating these majestic, lovely, soft creatures in this way and we feel responsible for it. Our conscience cannot allow us to simply wipe a species of animal off the face of the earth. Do I believe that we should save the elephant? Absolutely. Do I believe that what is happening to them is unacceptable? Absolutely but not just because it is unfair and unjust but because these are wonderful creatures given to us by God, created by Him.
The second story which caught my eye was the front page story, a science story, which is not something I normally get too caught up with but this one did intrigue me. Apparently a new study has been conducted which proves why men and women think and act differently because their brains are wired differently. In men the connections tend to run from north to south of the brain whereas women's brains tend to make connections from east to the west. This again is presented as an effect of evolution. But the author of the study had this very telling comment to make:
“It's quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are,” said Rubin Gur of Pennsylvania University, a co-author of the study.
The brains of men and women have been designed in such a way as to make them complementary, this is exactly what we are told about in the book of Genesis, all the animals are brought before Adam and there is found no helper suitable for him amongst all the animals and so God decides to make a helper suitable for him from him. God designed men and women to be complimentarian, they are designed to work together. Now either Moses had access to the latest scientific research years ahead of his time or else there is an intelligent designer behind the creation of these men and women.
For more information on the Independent Christmas appeal or to donate please visit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/campaigns/elephant-campaign/
Or to read the second story in full:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-hardwired-difference-between-male-and-female-brains-could-explain-why-men-are-better-at-map-reading-8978248.html
The first concerns the Independent's Christmas appeal this year which focuses on the very worthy cause of protecting the Elephants in the wild. They are being hunted almost to the point of extinction by men bent on getting their ivory for the world markets. This they cry is an outrage which cannot be allowed to go on...
But is it? This is the same newspaper which at every turn chooses to push an agenda of evolution over intelligent design. Pushing this argument to it's natural limit, and over simplifying which I am aware I am doing but for effect, there is no reason to save the elephant. They have not kept pace with the evolutionary developments of man and they are therefore fair game. This same argument could be applied to any animal in the world which is endangered. If evolution is true and correct, then this process is unstoppable and the elephant will either evolve to deal with the threat which man poses or else they will die off either way it doesn't matter.
The rub is that it does matter though, the rub is that we know as human beings we shouldn't be treating these majestic, lovely, soft creatures in this way and we feel responsible for it. Our conscience cannot allow us to simply wipe a species of animal off the face of the earth. Do I believe that we should save the elephant? Absolutely. Do I believe that what is happening to them is unacceptable? Absolutely but not just because it is unfair and unjust but because these are wonderful creatures given to us by God, created by Him.
The second story which caught my eye was the front page story, a science story, which is not something I normally get too caught up with but this one did intrigue me. Apparently a new study has been conducted which proves why men and women think and act differently because their brains are wired differently. In men the connections tend to run from north to south of the brain whereas women's brains tend to make connections from east to the west. This again is presented as an effect of evolution. But the author of the study had this very telling comment to make:
“It's quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are,” said Rubin Gur of Pennsylvania University, a co-author of the study.
The brains of men and women have been designed in such a way as to make them complementary, this is exactly what we are told about in the book of Genesis, all the animals are brought before Adam and there is found no helper suitable for him amongst all the animals and so God decides to make a helper suitable for him from him. God designed men and women to be complimentarian, they are designed to work together. Now either Moses had access to the latest scientific research years ahead of his time or else there is an intelligent designer behind the creation of these men and women.
For more information on the Independent Christmas appeal or to donate please visit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/campaigns/elephant-campaign/
Or to read the second story in full:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-hardwired-difference-between-male-and-female-brains-could-explain-why-men-are-better-at-map-reading-8978248.html
Friday, 4 October 2013
Question Time
I have recently been learning the Westminster Shorter Catechism as part of my training for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the first two questions struck me as very apt for the modern church:
1. What is man's chief end?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
This is our primary purpose in life, to glorify God, to give him of our best, to give him of our time and talents and energy. To focus our attention on Him and living to please Him. Now of course this goes against what our modern society says, our modern society lives for ourselves, for what we want to do. If it feels good then we should do it, well not according to the catechism, if it is glorifying to God then we should do it, if it pleases him then we should do it.
Now at this point some may raise an objection, this sounds like a very dull life, a life where we cannot do what we please, but notice the outcome of glorifying God that we enjoy him forever. This is not a boring dull life, this is a life lived in its fullest, a life lived in joy.
2. What is the only authority for glorifying and enjoying Him?
A: The only authority for glorifying and enjoying him is the bible, which is the Word of God and consists of the Old and New Testaments.
How do we enjoy God? How do we live a life that is glorifying to Him? Well the Bible tells us how to live a life like this. This means that whatever we are doing that is not in line with the Bible, that doesn't match up with what scripture teaches is not glorifying to God and is not helping us to fulfil our primary purpose in life. Of course many in the church today wish to rubbish this claim, they say the Bible is a book written by men and not the word of God. However this is the classic faith handed down to us by the men who have gone before us. If you wish to dispute the claims of the Bible, go ahead please do so by all means, but you cannot seriously claim to be following on in the footsteps of those who have gone before. You are the one who is taking yourself out of the historic faith of Christianity.
This is what makes the situation in the Church of Scotland so sad, the Westminster standards are their subordinate standards to the bible, yet they find themselves breaking them and why? So that they can appear liberal, inclusive and welcoming to all. Now of course we should be welcoming to all but this shouldn't mean that we set aside any standards and have free reign. The only authority to fulfil our Divine purpose in this life is the Bible, the Old and New Testament, the Word of God. Sadly many of us have forgotten this truth today and have made social acceptance, popularity or culture the only authority for glorifying and enjoying God, but these will ultimately be found wanting.
1. What is man's chief end?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
This is our primary purpose in life, to glorify God, to give him of our best, to give him of our time and talents and energy. To focus our attention on Him and living to please Him. Now of course this goes against what our modern society says, our modern society lives for ourselves, for what we want to do. If it feels good then we should do it, well not according to the catechism, if it is glorifying to God then we should do it, if it pleases him then we should do it.
Now at this point some may raise an objection, this sounds like a very dull life, a life where we cannot do what we please, but notice the outcome of glorifying God that we enjoy him forever. This is not a boring dull life, this is a life lived in its fullest, a life lived in joy.
2. What is the only authority for glorifying and enjoying Him?
A: The only authority for glorifying and enjoying him is the bible, which is the Word of God and consists of the Old and New Testaments.
How do we enjoy God? How do we live a life that is glorifying to Him? Well the Bible tells us how to live a life like this. This means that whatever we are doing that is not in line with the Bible, that doesn't match up with what scripture teaches is not glorifying to God and is not helping us to fulfil our primary purpose in life. Of course many in the church today wish to rubbish this claim, they say the Bible is a book written by men and not the word of God. However this is the classic faith handed down to us by the men who have gone before us. If you wish to dispute the claims of the Bible, go ahead please do so by all means, but you cannot seriously claim to be following on in the footsteps of those who have gone before. You are the one who is taking yourself out of the historic faith of Christianity.
This is what makes the situation in the Church of Scotland so sad, the Westminster standards are their subordinate standards to the bible, yet they find themselves breaking them and why? So that they can appear liberal, inclusive and welcoming to all. Now of course we should be welcoming to all but this shouldn't mean that we set aside any standards and have free reign. The only authority to fulfil our Divine purpose in this life is the Bible, the Old and New Testament, the Word of God. Sadly many of us have forgotten this truth today and have made social acceptance, popularity or culture the only authority for glorifying and enjoying God, but these will ultimately be found wanting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)