"He Is Not Silent"...

With things being extra crazy around here for the last couple of weeks I’ve gotten away from some of my outside reading. Reading multiple books at the same time isn’t that difficult, it’s not keeping up with reading them that it becomes a hard task. My main interest of late has been a book by Dr. Albert Mohler called “He Is Not Silent.”

I was almost half way through with the book when I had gotten away from my outside reading so I decided to just start it over. John Macarthur wrote the foreword for this book and as usual Johnny Mac doesn’t disappoint. He is definitely one of the best expositors and teachers of our time. This post will be of the six main issues that Dr. Mohler listed in the preface of this book as the results of the weakening of preaching since the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Dr. Mohler says, “I believe the weakening of preaching at the beginning of the twenty-first century is the result of several factors, all of which are matters of genuine concern, and all of which have worked together to undermine the role of preaching in the church and to redefine it as something other than the exposition and application of the biblical text.” (pg. 16 of “He Is Not Silent” by Dr. R. Albert Mohler)

First, contemporary preaching suffers from a loss of confidence in the power of the word.

Contemporary Americans are surrounded by more words than any previous generation in human history. We are bombarded with words delivered to us in every conceivable form—sung, broadcast, electrified, printed, and spoken. Words have been digitalized, commercialized, and subjected to postmodern linguistic theories.
Taken together, all this amounts to a significant loss of confidence in the word as written and spoken. Several years ago, the photographer Richard Avedon declared that “images are fast replacing words as our primary language.” Similarly, in The Rise of the Image, the Fall of the Word, author Mitchell Stephens of New York University argues that “the image is replacing the word as the predominant means of mental transport.”
Since preaching is itself a form of “mental transport,” any loss of confidence in the word leads to a loss of confidence in preaching. Ultimately, preaching will cease to be Christian preaching if the preacher loses confidence in the authority of the Bible as the Word of God and in the power of the spoken word to communicate the saving and transforming message of the Bible. The preacher must stand up and speak with confidence, declaring the Word of God to a congregation that is bombarded with hundreds of thousands of words each week, many of them delivered with a sound track or moving images. The audacious claim of Christian preaching is that the faithful declaration of the Word of God, spoken through the preacher’s voice, is even more powerful than anything music or image can deliver.

Second, contemporary preaching suffers from an infatuation with technology.

The French philosophy Jacques Ellul was truly prophetic when he pointed to the rise of technology and technique as one of the greatest challenges to Christian faithfulness in our times. We live in a day of technological hubris and the ubiquity of technological assistance. We are engaged in few tasks, physical or mental, that are now unassisted by some form of technology. For most of us, the use of these technologies comes with little attentiveness to how the technology reshapes the task and the experience. The same is true for preachers who have rushed to incorporate visual technology and media in the preaching event. The effort is no doubt well intended, driven by missiological concern to reach persons whose primary form of “mental transport” has become visual. Thus, preachers use clips from films, dynamic graphics, and other eye- catching technologies to gain and hold the congregation’s attention. But the danger of this approach is seen in the fact that the visual quickly overcomes the verbal. Beyond this, the visual is often directed toward a very narrow slice of human experience, particularly focused on the affective and emotional aspects of our perception. Movies move us by the skillful manipulation of emotion, driven by soundtrack and manipulated by skillful directing techniques.
This is exactly where the preacher must not go. The power of the Word of God, spoken through the human voice, is seen in the Bible’s unique power to penetrate all dimensions of the human personality. As God made clear, even in the Ten Commandments, He has chosen to be heard and not seen. The use of visual technologies threatens to confuse this basic fact of biblical faith.

Third, contemporary preaching suffers from embarrassment before the biblical text.

Over the years, I have heard innumerable sermons from evangelical preachers, and I cannot help but notice that some have a tendency to appear rather embarrassed before the biblical text. The persistent attacks upon biblical authority and the sensitivities of our times have taken a toll on the preacher’s confidence in the actual text of the Bible.
On the theological left, the answer is quite simple—just discard the text and write it off as patriarchal, oppressive, and completely unacceptable in light of an updated concept of God. Among evangelicals, we can be thankful that fewer preachers are willing to dismiss or discard the text as sub-biblical or warped by ancient prejudices. But even so, many of these preachers simply disregard and ignore vast sections of Scripture, focusing instead on texts that are more comfortable, palatable, and non-confrontational to the modern mind. This is a form of pastoral neglect and malpractice, corrected only by a comprehensive embrace of the Bible—all of it—as the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. All of it is for our good. As Paul said to Timothy, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable” for us (2 Timothy 3:16, italics added).

Fourth, contemporary preaching suffers from an emptying of biblical content.

The last point was concerned with passages of Scripture that are never preached, but what about the texts that are preached? Are today’s preachers actually studying for the content of the passage? In far to many cases, it seems that the text becomes a point of departure for some message—again, no doubt well intended—which the pastor wishes to share with the congregation. Beyond this, the text of Scripture is often emptied—evacuated—of biblical content when, regardless of a passage’s textual form or context, the is uniformly presented as a set of pithy “points” that come together in a staple outline form.
Every text does have a point, of course, and the preacher’s main concern should be to communicate that central truth. In fact, he should design the sermon to serve that overarching purpose. Furthermore, the content of the passage is to be applied to life—but application must be determined by exposition, not vice versa.
Another problem that leads to an evacuation of biblical content is a loss of the “big picture” of Scripture. Far to many preachers give inadequate attention to the canonical context of the passage to be preached and of its place in the overarching story of God’s purpose to glorify Himself through the redemption of sinners. Taken out of context, and without clear attention to biblical theology, preaching becomes a series of disconnected talks on disconnected texts. This falls far short of the glory of true biblical preaching.

Fifth, contemporary preaching suffers from a focus on felt needs.

The current debate over preaching is most commonly explained as an argument about the focus and shape of the sermon. Should the preacher seek to preach a biblical text through an expository sermon? Or should the preacher direct the sermon to the “felt needs” and perceived needs of the hearers?
Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City and perhaps the most famous (or infamous) preacher of the twentieth century’s early decades, once defined the task of preaching like this: “Preaching is personal counseling on a group basis.” Earlier evangelicals recognized Fosdick’s approach as a rejection of biblical preaching. An unabashed theological liberal, Fosdick paraded his rejection of biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility—and rejected other doctrines central to the Christian faith. Enamored with trends in psychological theory, Fosdick became liberal Protestantism’s happy pulpit therapist. The goal of his preaching was well captured by the title of one of his many books, On Being a Real Person.
Shockingly, this approach is now evident in many evangelical pulpits. Urged by his devotees of “needs-based preaching,” many evangelicals have abandoned the text without recognizing that they have done so. These preachers may eventually get to the text in the course of the sermon, but the text does not set the agenda or establish the shape of the message. The sacred desk has become an advice center, and the pew has become the therapist’s couch. Psychological and practical concerns have displaced theological exegesis, and the preacher directs his sermon to the congregation’s perceived needs rather than to their need for a Savior.
The problem, of course, is that the sinner does not know what his most urgent need is. He is blind to his need for redemption and reconciliation with God, and focuses on potentially real but temporal needs such as personal fulfillment, financial security, family peace, and career advancement. Too many sermons settle for answering these expressed needs and concerns and fail to proclaim the Word of Truth.

Sixth, contemporary preaching suffers from an absence of the gospel.

The preaching of the apostles always presented the kerygma—the heart of the gospel. The clear presentation of the gospel must be a part of the sermon, no matter the text. As Charles Spurgeon expressed this so eloquently, preach the Word, place it in its canonical context, and “make a bee-line to the cross.”
The approach of many preachers is to present helpful and practical messages, often with generalized Christian content but without any clear presentation of the gospel or call to decision and accountability to the text or to the claims of Christ. The apostles should be our model here, consistently preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course, in order for the gospel to make sense, authentic preaching must also deal honestly with the reality of human sin and must do so with a candor equal to that of the biblical text. All this presents the preacher with some significant challenges in our age of “sensitivities.” But in the end, preaching devoid of this content—preaching that evades the biblical text and biblical truth—falls short of anything we can rightly call Christian preaching. (pgs 16-21 of He Is Not Silent)

In Christ Alone,
Mr. V.

Wal-Mart...

The other night out of mere curiosity I watched CNBC's documentary called "The New Age of Wal-Mart." The show intrigued me very much and got me to ask numerous questions about different things. The link below is a clip of the documentary that CNBC has done on Wal-Mart and the entire program will be aired again the first of October.

The New Age of Walmart ? Preview - CNBC.com

A few of the complaints that interested me the most are as follows and below each quote I've added my thoughts on each issue.

"If Wal-Mart moves in then it kills off the little guy."

-Sure, if a new company moves into town then it does make for more competition. In competition someone does loose, but why take aim at the winner? Don't forget, Wal-Mart started out as the little guy.

"Wal-Mart doesn't pay their employees enough to live on."

-If your job isn't paying enough for you to survive on then ask for a raise or find a different job. The documentary even shows that Wal-Mart offers the standard pay rate that any other retail store would offer.

"Wal-Mart is killing the American economy by selling product made from foreign factories by people who are basically treated like slaves."

-Tell me what major company that's in business that doesn't sell foreign made products? As for the workers in the factories, the documentary shows that Wal-Mart is pushing and expecting better working environments for those employees. And don't forget that those factories are not owned by Wal-Mart. They are owned by those that sell merchandise to Wal-Mart. It should be the governments of those countries that should do a better job of enforcing the labor laws. Yet, Wal-Mart is using some of its major power to work toward reform in that matter. Should it be done faster or better? Whose to say, but at least they are doing something about it.

"Employees wanting Wal-Mart to unionize."

-This is very interesting because an amount of Wal-Mart employees are wanting to bring the union in for better pay and benefits. I guess the union is good and does work for the people, but what if Wal-Mart then decides to just move all of its stores out of the United States? Where would our economy be then? The documentary shows that Wal-Mart is now thriving world wide and at some point will have more stores in China then they do here in the states. If Wal-Mart left the USA because of the union then would those mom and pop stores be able to provide enough income and benefits for a family to survive?

All in all I thought the program was very interesting and worth my time. I've realized that Wal-Mart can and is a hot topic with a lot of people. The worlds largest retailer is providing jobs for about 250 people per store if I remember correctly. Wal-Mart has over 4,000 stores nationwide; that's a lot of jobs. Like it or not, Wal-Mart is a major force in our economy. I don't or have ever worked for Wal-Mart, but I do know people that have or do. It's basically like anything else, some like it while others don't. My family does and will continue to shop there, after all it's a one stop shopping trip. We need stuff, they provide it and at usually a low price. It's simple supply and demand.

In Christ Alone,

Mr. V.

Being A Teen Again...

The thought of being a teenager again has crossed my mind over the last couple of weeks. The reasons for the thought are 1. teaching youth again and 2. having another birthday. Just to go ahead and clear the air, there is no way I would want to go back and become a teenager again.

Sunday morning in class we talked about trusting others and the fear of the unknown. I'm still young enough to remember what they are talking about when they make those claims, even though they might not think so. Some are concerned over boyfriend/girlfriend issues, others are worried about tests and homework or athletics. Then there are some that are worried with bigger things, like wondering if their parents will be home when they get there or if mom and dad are fighting again. These are all issues that happen everywhere, even small towns like the one I live in. Yet, it almost seems as though these issues will never be approached or spoken too. They will continue to go on until the youth either moves out or goes away to college. Then, depending on the issue those same concerns will be left for a younger sibling to be worried with; not to mention what the adults in the home are putting each other through.

I then begin to wonder, "where does the church come into all of this?" Some of these kids have been involved in the church in some form or fashion for a period of time, yet as I mentioned above, nothing is done. So where does the church define the line of getting involved in the life of a young person? Is it just offering them a cool place to come and hang out in hopes that something the teacher or preacher says sticks? If so, then what's the point? Even the public school system has a better plan then that. Speaking of the public school system, I would dare say the church looks more like it then the other way around, but that is a topic for another day. I would also say that it doesn't take offering the kid food or a cool place to hang out in order for them to show up or even open up and talk. All it really takes is to ask them. Teens love to talk about all different kinds of issues. They just don't want to be approached as children. I've come to realize that people will react to expectations. If you expect a child to be hard working and caring, most of the time they will be. All people want to be given truth and no one wants to feel talked down to. If a young person knows that you are serious about what's going on with them and you want to share truth with them, regardless how hard it may seem, they will respond. The question should really be, "Are we prepared for what they might say?" Are we as adults prepared for the unknown of the life of some teenager?

So, there is no way I would want to go back and be a teenager again. And my reasons have nothing really to do with the above. I've lived those years for a God given reason and purpose. That purpose was to prepare me for the work that He has for me. That work being to worship Him and to lead my family in a Christ like manner and I wouldn't trade those for anything.

In Christ Alone,
Mr. V.

Dr. Mohler on being Baptist...

From time to time I will pick up the book entitled, "Why I Am A Baptist" edited by Tom J. Nettles and Russell D. Moore so that I can read what individuals have to say about being a Baptist. On this occasion it was Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. that I came across. Dr. Mohler is probably the face of the Southern Baptist Convention right now. He is the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky; the flagship school of the SBC. SBTS is one of the largest seminaries in the world and even in these tough economical times the school continues to grow and thrive. I truly enjoy reading and listening to Dr. Mohler because of his knowledge for church history and his desire to be known for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. I thank God for what He is doing through Dr. Mohler and the rest of the leadership at SBTS.

I have pulled the following from Dr. Mohler's article in the book. This information and a little more about Dr. Mohler can be found on pages 58-64 of "Why I Am A Baptist" edited by Tom J. Nettles and Russell D. Moore. I hope the following give us Baptists a little more understanding on why we are Baptist.

THE INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPEL

Baptists are gospel people. We cherish the gospel of Jesus Christ as the means of salvation to all who believe. We know that there is salvation in the name of Jesus and in no other name. Sinners come to Christ by faith, and are justified by faith alone. Grace is our theme and the gospel of Jesus Christ is our message. As the 1644 London Confession stated: "The tenders of the absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made a Prince and a Savior for such sinners."
Believer's baptism is essential to our understanding of the gospel, for it is our public profession of faith in Christ. It underscores the necessity of personal confession of Christ as Savior and Lord, and denies any faith by proxy. Our rejection of infant baptism is rooted in the clear and normative New Testament witness to the baptism of believers by immersion. But we are also chastened by the knowledge that millions of persons, baptized as infants, consider themselves Christians while never confessing Christ as Savior. I am a Baptist because we defend the integrity of the gospel.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

Every denomination operates under some concept of spiritual authority, however vague or unbiblical it may be. Baptists often describe their churches as "spiritual democracies." This is a true statement, but it can be dangerously misunderstood. Christ rules in his church, and he rules through his Word.
The Bible, and the Bible alone, hold ultimate authority in a Baptist congregation. The Second London Confession of Faith (1677) put the issue plainly: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own Glory, man's salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men."
Baptist congregationalism is an exercise in bringing ourselves under submission to the Word of God--not in exercising our own authority in the place of Scripture.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

Congregationalism is more than a system of church polity; it is the Baptist vision of the visible church as revealed in the New Testament. The core of congregationalism is the affirmation of our responsibility, under the lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture, to come together as believers under a covenant of faithfulness to Christ. No one is a Baptist alone.
Seeking to define the church, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833) states that a visible church is a "congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ; governed by His laws; and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word." Every word of this definition is essential to the New Testament vision of the church.
In a Baptist congregation, every believer is in covenant with brothers and sisters in Christ. Believer's baptism by immersion, faithfully following the example and instruction of our Lord, is the sign of that covenant, and is prerequisite to membership. We are a congregation of believer priests, serving the Lord in the preaching of the Word, the observation of the ordinances, discipline in accord with God's laws, and the proclamation of the gospel.
I cannot reconcile any other form of church government with the New Testament. Believer's baptism is so central and essential to our understanding of the church that we can see no church without this ordinance and can recognize no other baptism as true baptism. We came by our name honestly.
Baptist by family heritage, I am a Baptist by conviction. With thankfulness to God, I claim this heritage as my own and pray that the Baptists of this generation will stand in faithful obedience before God. By God's grace, this is why I am a Baptist. -Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.

In Christ Alone,
Mr. V.