A Renewed Mind

In my previous entry, I noted how much of today’s journalism is not really journalism. “News stories” are often used by today’s writers and media outlets to advance their particular worldview, political candidate, or personal opinions. The facts of the stories themselves are often incidental while the comment on how the writer thinks things should be are the real focus. This is not always the case, of course, and there are some reliable news sources that are true to the aims and means of good journalism.

As I was writing, I could hear an obvious objection being raised by some skeptics: “Isn’t that what preachers do? Aren’t preachers simply trying to make people believe what the preachers want them to believe?” Sadly, this is true of some preachers—far too many preachers, I’m afraid. But this is not a true criticism of genuine biblical preaching. A brief look at some parallels between preaching and journalism can help us understand when preaching isn’t preaching.

One task. A good journalist has one task: to present historical facts to his or her readers so that they are able to better understand and relate to the world in which they live. In a news story, a writer seeks to tell the readers what is happening in the world and to identify the impact of that event. Their subject matter may be an event that happened yesterday, is happening at this very moment, or will happen tomorrow. They may be writing about the government or fashion or sports or zoology or any number of things. Nevertheless, the journalist’s task is to declare what is going on in the world. When reporters fail to do this, they fail to fulfill their responsibility.

A preacher’s task is to make God known. He, too, is primarily concerned with making known the facts of reality so that his hearers will know how to live in the world. God is the ultimate reality; all of reality flows out of the person of God. Therefore, we must all understand who this supreme Being is and how we are to relate to Him. God as revealed in the Scriptures through His Son must be the subject matter of every sermon. Like the journalist, the preacher may also deal with events from the past, present, or future. He will deal with a wide variety of subject—everything from education and vocation to marriage and sex. In all of these things, is task is to make God known. If a preacher simply gives guidelines for happy living or presents theological truths or shares what he thinks about something, he fails at his task. He’s simply commenting on reality. Say what he may, he isn’t preaching.

Just the facts, sir. A good journalist deals with facts. He or she makes a diligent search for facts from the first and best (primary) sources. Then he or she will examine them and carefully discern the meaning of the facts. Finally, the journalist will thoughtfully organize and present the facts in way that is clear and understandable for his or her readers. This process largely describes the work of a preacher.

Genuine biblical preaching deals with facts—objective, verifiable truth. These facts—this truth—is revealed in Scripture. God is ultimate truth and He has plainly revealed Himself in the Scriptures. The preacher’s task then is to make a diligent search of the Scriptures to see what God has revealed. He must carefully observe the words of Scripture until he knows clearly what God has said. Then the preacher will assiduously examine the meaning of the Scriptures, carefully comparing his text to other texts within the Bible until he is able to thoroughly understand its meaning. Finally, he will labor to organize his findings into a sermon that is correct and clear. In doing so, the preacher will help the congregation to see that the facts he presents come from the Scriptures before them so that they know the words they hear are true.

What about persuasion?  Here is where I would argue that good preaching parts from good journalism. While the journalist is primarily concerned with reporting the world, a preacher is concerned with people coming to the God we proclaim. I don’t have time to work this out, but I think this is largely because of our subject matter. Journalists deal with objective historical facts (even when those facts are biographical), whereas preachers speak of a living Person who may be personally known by the hearer as a result of listening to the preacher. (This is both mind-boggling and glorious to me.) Thus, the preacher is not primarily reporting about God; he seeks to make God known. He is primarily man to God. Therefore, he must be persuasive. Unlike, the however,

Genuine biblical preaching seeks to persuade men to return to God’s position, not the preacher’s. This is where he differs from the poor journalist, who seeks to persuade others to his or her own position. The preacher is not mainly concerned that others agree with him; he is concerned that his congregation agrees with God. This is why he must deal rightly and carefully with the Scriptures. Once the preacher knows what the Scriptures say, and once those Scriptures have brought the preacher to know God more deeply and personally and powerfully, he is compelled to persuade others to hear and believe God. This was the case for Paul. We catch Paul’s urgency to persuade men in his preaching when he writes to the Corinthian church

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:20)

Thus, unlike a reporter, a true preacher must be persuasive. The preacher wants the people to feel the weight of God’s truth and the certainty of eternity; he yearns for them to know the horrors of sin and the wonders of grace; he longs for them to behold the beauty of Christ and see the glory of God. And so, week after week, he seeks to make God know by searching the Scriptures and persuasively preaching the glories of Christ, so that as he lifts up Christ, Christ may draw all men to Himself. (See John 12:32.) 

And if the preacher aims at anything less, if he simply seeks to persuade the people to be a certain kind of person or live a certain way or imitate a certain kind of behavior or have a particular theological position, then he isn’t preaching.

I’m humbled to think that this is my calling. Please pray for me that I will be a faithful preacher who cares little about drawing a crowd or advancing my own agenda, and who, by the grace and power of God, makes God known.

If it’s brief, it must not be mine. I tried to keep the next post short, but somehow… 

Any way, I really appreciated this explanation of preaching on the Desiring God blog entry “What I Mean by Preaching.” No other living person has shaped my understanding of preaching more than John Piper. Nor does any other person challenge me and make me want to be a better preacher.

Maybe that’s why I identify with him when he says:

If you’re used to a twenty-minute, immediately practical, relaxed talk, you won’t find that from what I’ve just described.

• I preach twice that long;
• I do not aim to be immediately practical but eternally helpful;
• and I am not relaxed.

I hope that I can follow–not imitate–his example. Please take a few minutes to listen.

Keeping up with the world is a necessity for anyone who wants to make the glories of Christ known. Of course, there are different ways to do that. I have found it helpful to read carefully read through a couple of news magazines each week. Quite some time ago, I chose two magazines that approach the world and its events from very different perspectives and with very different values–World and U.S.News & World Report.

For the last twelve years or so, I subscribed to U.S.News. Each week I would digest the issue trying to glean news from “articles” interspersed with commentary aimed at advancing an evolutionary secular humanism, a revisionist view of history, and a liberal, socialistic political agenda. Last year, the magazine cut back from a weekly to a bi-weekly format largely because of a changing cost structure. Due to declining subscriptions, this year they evolved into a monthly magazine aimed at lifestyle rather than detailed news. To explain the decline, the publishers blamed the changes on the readers and their changing habits rather than making a critical examination of their magazine’s editorial approach to “journalism”.

Without much product loyalty, I quickly switched to another news weekly which is really not another. In late March, my first issue of Time arrived and much to my lack of surprise, its cover story was an opinion piece. Sigh. What has happened to the news? What happens when people read without discernment and are unaware that the “news” they are reading is really the writer’s opinions? What happens when the “news” is really spun and manufactured in order to advance a worldview or agenda?

Two recent stories from two different “news” magazines illustrate my concern. In both columns the writers celebrate the demise of institutions far too soon, before the ‘facts’ can substantiate their joyous claims. Last week’s cover of Time gleefully concluded that the Republican party is now an endangered species. The accompanying article is filled with derogatory commentary to support the magazine’s hopeful prediction of the death of the GOP, but contains very little objective content. In this case, even a most undiscerning reader can probably tell that the writer really, really wants the Republican Party to go away. To be fair, I am sure that some columnists said essentially the same thing about the Democrats after November, 2004, which only further illustrates the folly of letting opinion guide the reporting of facts. Though I have nothing invested in the Republican Party, I take issue with “journalism” that seeks to manipulate public opinion by stating their opinions and desires as if they are historical and factual.

On an opposite front, the April 13 issue of Newsweek triumphantly reported that we have come to “The End of Christian America“. In the story, Jon Meachem gives his analysis of the data in the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) and data from a Newsweek poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Here again, the writer’s elation is thinly veiled as he pronounces the end of evangelical Christianity’s influence on America. In making his case, he takes data from the ARIS which show a decline in the number of “self-identified Christians” and a rise in the number of “religiously unidentified” and places them alongside the political poll conducted by Newsweek to argue that the decline in evangelical Christianity means that they are no longer an influence on the American political system. Meachem implies that America has now been liberated from a evangelical influence and presents a belittling caricature of evangelical Christians in the process. Shortly after publication, Meachem later wrote a shorter online column stating that he was not attacking Christianity, but simply rejoicing that Christianity was finding its rightful place in the closet–my paraphrase, of course.

Evangelicals can’t be too sensitive to the liberal media’s disparaging attitudes and actions; we should expect them. In fact, we should rejoice in them (Matthew 5:11-12). Indeed, America does stand for liberty and freedom so that her people are able to express their opinions, as Meachem did in his story and as I am doing here. Nevertheless, journalists and the news media should be expected to report the facts of current events openly and objectively. When journalists shape their stories and the “facts” according to their own agendas and desired outcomes, they are no longer journalists, but commentators seeking to make people believe what they want them to believe.*

While I believe this needs to change, I don’t believe that it will, at least not soon. Therefore, we must be careful; we must be discerning. We don’t have to be afraid of the media, and we must read and keep up with our world. We just have to be wise and understanding. From whatever source we get our news,we must learn to separate the factual accounts within the story from the author’s commentary and flawed conclusions. For my part, I will continue to read Time and World each week.  With both I will be a careful reader so that I may learn from them more about the world and cultures of our day so that, by the grace of God, I may be better prepared to give a defense for the hope that is within me.

*Blogs don’t have footnotes?! At this point, I’m sure that Mr. Meachem might ask, “How are preachers any different?” That’s a good question. Next time, we’ll address “When Preaching Isn’t Preaching”.

I know it’s kind of late to chime in with my thoughts about Susan Boyle’s success, but I’ve been studying the book of Revelation this week to prepare for Sunday’s sermon and I find a compelling parallel that I think is worth sharing. You can be the judge I suppose.

If you have not watched the full-length (7 minutes) YouTube posting of Susan Boyle’s performance, you really should. (Imagine that, me encouraging you to watch something off of television.) For those of you who haven’t heard of Susan Boyle, she is a 47 year-old woman from a village in Scotland who was pursuing her dream of being a professional singer. Obviously, the main problem is that she doesn’t look the part. Nevertheless, she won an opportunity to appear on Britains Got Talent, the UK’s version of American Idol (which I’ve not yet seen).

Prior to her performance, the show’s judges were not just skeptical, they were rude. As one of the judges admitted to Boyle, “{Before your performance} everyone was laughing at you.” Another judge (Amanda) stated afterward, “I am so thrilled because I know that everybody was against you. I honestly think that we were being very cynical.”

As the music began to play and Susan Boyle began to sing, it was only a moment before the judges and the audience discovered the folly of judging a book by its cover, the idiocy of concluding what “is” based on superficial evidences, the sheer madness of determining reality just because we think so. Amanda concluded, “That was the biggest wake up call ever.”

Not quite. The “biggest wake-up call ever” is still to come. On that day, when the seven seals are broken and the seven trumpets sound, the One who is called Faithful and True whose name is King of kings and Lord of lords will ride forth (Revelation 19:11-16). On that day, the surprised cynics will number in the billions. On that day, the jaws of those who laughed at this humble, unimpressive preacher will drop, and their knees will give way, and they will reel in amazement and fear. Some will call on the mountains to fall on them so that they do not have to see his face. What a dreadful awakening that will be.

May the Lord grant us grace that we may labor with all that God has given us to make Him known today. Shall we even attempt to make him known, we will meet the skeptics. They will laugh at us. Most often, perhaps, they will not be impressed. They will not applaud. They will not concede their folly. Yet, those whose eyes are opened today will escape the greatest wake-up call ever. And, with all who believe, they will enjoy the glory of the surprising Savior for eternity.

After my recent sermon on church discipline (5/3/2009 – The Protection of the Church), I was asked a couple of questions that are worth passing on. 

On Being Tight-Lipped

We examined the process given to us by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20. We saw that the first step is private. When an offense has been committed and we know of it, we are to go to the offender and confront the sin in love and humility with the aim of winning them through repentance. If that attempt is unsuccessful, we return in similar fashion taking one or two mature brothers or sisters with us. On this point, I stressed that we bring the offense to the offender without talking about it to others. As our aim is repentance and restoration, we do not want to complicate that–and we do not want to sin against them–by gossip, slander, or malicious talk. Gossip is too prevalent in our culture and churches, and it kills the very kind of community and accountability which the church is designed to share (and which church discipline makes possible). For this reason, I stated that we must not talk to one another about the offense, but we must go to the offender, and keep the outcome of our conversation private.

This raised a good question: “What if I am not sure that I should address the person? Is it wrong for me to get someone else’s opinion as to whether it is right for me to talk to the person about the offense?” Indeed, sometimes we may need mature, biblical counsel to discern whether we would serve our brother or sister by confronting their sin. If we are concerned for a brother or sister because of their sin, but we are not sure that we should confront them, it would be wise to seek counsel.  In seeking counsel, select someone who:

• is mature, both in life and their Christian walk
• will give biblical counsel and understanding
• will be objective, enough distance from the situation to understand with clarity
• is committed to both you and the offender–that is, a member of the church who will share your concern
• will not talk to others about the situation.

Being Discerning and not Judgmental

The second question was, “How can we confront sin and not be judgmental?” The answer is that we carefully discern whether the offense is sin for which our brother or sister is unrepentant. If so, our brother or sister will suffer greatly. Our concern over their loss of fellowship with the Lord and His church, and their potential of hardening their hearts so that they fall away from the living God compels us to confront their sin. A lack of humble, caring confrontation is really the unloving act.

I tried to explain this briefly, but was pressed for time. In Matthew 7:1, we have the famous command from Jesus: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” This is an important command that all of us need to remember and honor. In the context, it is clear that Jesus is dealing with the kind of judgmental attitudes that the Pharisees (and all of us at one time or another) possessed. This kind of judging refers to a self-righteous use of the law in which we use the law to attack others while being oblivious to our own guilt before God. This judging has the effect of exalting ourselves over our sinning brother or sister while damaging them. We see this very clearly if we are careful to understand the command with the verses that follow.

But it is very possible for us to be discerning without judging. In fact, it is necessary. We can not live in this world without making judgments of some kind everyday. Just five verses after Jesus says “Judge not…”, He says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you” (Matthew 7:6, ESV). Notice again that these are commands from Jesus. And notice that in order to obey His commands, we must discern who the “dogs” and “pigs” are. In this sense, we must make judgments.

When it comes to the issue of judging or discerning our brother or sister’s sin, I believe the key is for us to consider our own motivation for dealing with our brother’s sin. Here are some helpful questions to consider:

• Am I primarily concerned about my brother or sister? Am I genuinely concerned about the effect of the sin on his or her life, the church, and his or her witness of Christ?
• Am I primarily offended personally? Am I motivated by a desire to “make them pay” for what they have done or to get even? Is my reaction due to an offense against my own sense of right and wrong more than it is by Scripture?
• Is the offense serious enough that God would use me to intervene in a humble way?

As I said in the sermon, none of us should be eager to discipline. We need to remember our responsibilities. It is not our responsibility to target our brothers and sisters like some media watchdog, alerting everyone to the weaknesses and sins of another. Rather, we are brothers and sisters. Therefore, we lovingly care for one another. And when a brother or sister goes astray, we go to them to bring them back to God and His people.  

[I know that Tim Challies has written more extensively on discernment and "judging" on his blog, but I don't have the links.]

One of the shocking stories in the book of Judges occurs in its closing chapters. As chapter 19 begins, “a certain Levite” went to Jerusalem to retrieve his runaway concubine. During their return to the hill country of Ephraim, darkness set in forcing them to stay in the town of Gibeah, where an old man kindly took them in for the night. Worthless fellows from the town came to the old man’s home seeking sex. The old man gave them the Levite’s concubine and the Gibeonites abused her until morning. As a result of the abuse, she died. The next morning, the Levite found her and took her back to his home. Upon arriving at home, he cut her into twelve pieces and sent one piece to each of the leaders of Israel’s twelve tribes.

This proved shocking and disturbing to Israel’s leaders as well as modern readers. The leaders and “all the people of Israel” gathered and the Levite told them what happened. All the people agreed together (literally, “as one man”) that justice must be sought against the leaders of Gibeah and they appealed to the people of the tribe of Benjamin (to which Gibeah belonged). ”But the Benjaminites would not listen to their brothers, the people of Israel” (20:13) and came out to fight against Israel.

Despite the guilt of the Benjaminites, Israel was not eager to fight against them. Instead, when the battle lines were being drawn, the people of Israel inquired of God and God told them to let the men of Judah go up against them. They obeyed, and on the first day, the Benjaminites won, killing 22,000 men of Israel. Afterwards, the Word says:

But the people, the men of Israel, took courage, and again formed the battle line in the same place where they had formed it on the first day. And the people of Israel went up and wept before the Lord until the evening. And they inquired of the Lord… (20:22-24a)

On the second day, again the Benjaminites defeated Israel, destroying 18,000 Israelites. And again the people of Israel wept before the Lord (20:26). With prayer and fasting, they inquired of the Lord and the Lord again told them to go up against Benjamin, promising victory. On the third day, God kept his promise and the men of Israel defeated Benjamin; their men, their cities, and their possessions were destroyed and burned. Only 600 of the Benjaminite men survived when they fled into the wilderness.

Afterwards, we might expect Israel to celebrate the victory that the Lord gave them. Instead, we find something very different. We find more weeping: 

And the people came to Bethel and sat there till evening before God, and they lifted up their voices and wept bitterly. And they said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, why has this happened in Israel, that today there should be one tribe lacking in Israel?” (21:2-3)

Within this story we see an obvious illustration of discipline within the people of God. A serious and shocking sin was committed by some of their leaders. God’s Law was clear to the rest of the leaders and they took action. They called the proper authorities to account for the sin and to purge the guilty parties from the congregation. Unfortunately, the offenders and their leaders would not acknowledge the sin and retaliated against those who brought the charges. [When our sin is confronted, it is so easy and often seems justified to attack those who confront our sin, rather than to discuss the charges themselves. Of course, most of us know this too well from our own experience.] In the end, however, God’s justice prevailed and the offenders were removed from the family of God.

Clear case of congregational church discipline. Are there times when God’s people must discipline or brothers and sisters in order to protect God’s church and the sinning member? Most definitely. And are there times when that discipline could appear harsh? And does the lack of discipline and the toleration of sin end up hurting the body even more than the initial sin? Yes and yes again. And so, the church must practice discipline. End of story? I think there is something more, something very important for us to see.

The weeping of Israel is very informative, and I find it very encouraging. As Israel carried out the God-given instruction of discipline against the tribe of Benjamin, they wept. Three times in the text, it tells us how they wept before the Lord. At first glance, we may assume that in the first two occurrences they wept because their “side” had lost so many soldiers in the battle. But the author tells us very clearly that after the first loss, “They took courage”. Notice, it is only after they are on their way back to the battle that “they wept before the Lord” (20:23). It seems to me that the tears revealed the anguish provoked by the necessity of fighting against their brothers, more than grief induced by their loss.

At any rate, this becomes very clear in chapter 21. The process of carrying out the Lord’s discipline against their fellow tribe caused them to weep and lament before the Lord (21:2). They do not rejoice that they were in the right; they do not fret over what their brother’s sin has cost them; they do not go off looking for another error to correct. A “brother” has been taken from them. And so, they weep.

Surely, this must be the attitude of our hearts when the church must carry out discipline. There must be an unbending, steel-like commitment to obey God, guard his name, and protect his church–his people. But there must also be a soft and tender heart that weeps for our erring brothers and sisters. The practice of discipline must be painful. If it is not, we had better be careful. If we can “discipline” without a tender heart that is willing to suffer for the sake of our brother’s repentance, we may be exalting ourselves according to our own self-righteousness at the cost of our brother’s life.

Should we ever find ourselves among a congregation that must discipline a brother or sister, may we remember Gibeah and the weeping of Israel. And may we weep with them.

[Note: This is not in response to any situation within our congregation. It is simply the fruit of meditating through the book of Judges. This was the illustration that we did not have time for last Sunday morning.]