A Brief Thought by Luke (Actually Me) on the Authority of the Word

At least twice in the gospel of Luke, Luke shows how the Word is to be preferred to a sign.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, while the rich man suffers in hell, he begs Abraham to send a risen Lazarus to warns his brothers, arguing that “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent” (LUke 16:30).

Father Abraham says, “Nah, they have the Old Testament. That’s enough. Signs will do no better” (Luke 16:31; my paraphrase).

Later, when Jesus encounters the two men on the road to Emmaus who are mourning the death of the one they thought (based on the OT) was to be the redeemer, Jesus could have very easily opened their eyes immediately to see him, the resurrected Savior. Surely such a sign would have been the best and most direct route to faith for these two men.

Yet Jesus instead points them to the OT (Luke 24:27), to the words that they had believed only a part of (Luke 24:25). In fact, it is not until he leaves that they understand, “That was him.”

In this day when people are desperately seeking signs as reasons to believe, we should follow the example of Abraham and Jesus. Point people to the Word.

It’s not that signs don’t work. John reports that Jesus did many signs in order to bring belief.

It’s rather that the Word does work, and it needs nothing else. We need not live in an age of miracles in order to see the gospel spread. We need not be able to call down fire from heaven, or bread or healing or any other thing from heaven.

We need to take seriously the Word given to create life and bring belief in the lives of those who hear it.

Around the Horn

At first this week, though the Huffington Post is generally not worth the paper is isn’t printed on, here’s a decent article on teen texting, or just texting in general. I say decent in that it makes some great points about texting, but only decent in that it doesn’t really address the problem of relationships or the problem of technology. If I find an article that addresses it better, I will text it to you. And you better respond within a few seconds.

At second, here’s a good article on evangelistic conversations with skeptics. Be wary of the temptation and tendency to desire to “show them what’s what” or to be ready with easy answers for all their questions. The goal of evangelistic conversations is evangelism, not winning. This article gives some good tips for engaging others in conversations. Be wary of confusing evangelism with talking past people.

At third, for all you word geeks out here, here are some “contronyms,” words that are their own opposites. It proves that context is everything in communication. Chances are, none of these words would confuse you if they were found in a sentence in everyday communication.

The homerun today is this interesting site, showing the progression of time on the planet through thirty years of satellite images. Some changes are pretty drastic, and others are barely noticeable. Dial up your home town and see how things have changed, and by all means, check out some of the links at the bottom of things others have found. (When you click on them, you need to manually scroll back up to the top to see it.)

Around the Horn

It’s been a while since I have posted much here. It’s been a busy summer with some other writing and study priorities, not to mention life.

But here goes another edition of Around the Horn.

At first, here’s Sam Storm’s list of things he wished had learned earlier in ministry.

At second, today is a little more than a double, since H. B. Charles took Storms’ ten things and turned them into 103, but this list of things learned in ministry is also interesting.

At third, for those interested in the situation in the city of Detroit, here’s one man who says It Didn’t Have To Be This Way. For those who haven’t followed much of the Detroit scandal (not the financial one specifically but the mayoral one), here’s an article that details the case against former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who is due to be sentenced today for his convictions on public corruption. I post it because it’s a good reminder that power without character is deadly, whether you get caught or not. Kilpatrick got caught.

Last, here’s an article about what ebooks are doing to libraries, but it’s probably not what you are thinking. I had no idea.

Three Relations of Biblical Preaching

Preaching is not, or at least it should not be, a “one-size fits all” type of endeavor. Preaching should have variety, not just in content, but in its total package. The cultivation of intentional variety will likely improve most preaching calendars in the local church. Or to put it differently, if the only thing different about your sermon from week to week is the text and the content, you may be depriving your flock of great opportunities for spiritual growth.

Here, I suggest three relations of biblical preaching to encourage pastors to consider some of the different ways you can preach. A given message will likely choose one from each category, though it may involve two (or rarely more).

Preaching as it relates to the text:

1. Topical
2. Textual
3. Textual-Topical
4. Expository*
5. Lectio Selecta
6. Lectio Continua
7. High Altitude
8. Low Altitude

*Expository as a method of preaching is different than expository as a method of handling a text. The main text (or texts) of a sermon should always be handled in an expository manner, even if the sermon itself is topical or textual. Supporting texts or illustrative texts may not necessarily be handled expositorily, though one should exercise great care here.

Preaching as it relates to the theme or focus of a message:

1. Theological/Doctrinal/Catechetical
2. Ethical/Pastoral/Topical
3. Biographical
4. Apologetic
5. Evangelistic

Preaching as it relates to the presentation or delivery:

1. Inductive
2. Deductive
3. Declarative
4. Dialogical
5. Pragmatic
6. Narrative
7. First Person Monologue

Shared Mutuality

Recently a blog post has gotten a lot of attention. It was written by a mom of boys giving some (very reasonable) views on the kind of pictures that young women are putting on sites like Facebook. It is a concern that could be extended to any number of other places.

It has been responded to in several places, with (IMO) varying degrees of helpfulness.

Predictably, the backlash came against her for daring to suggest that the way women dress might be a legitimate issue, when instead men and boys just need to control themselves and their thoughts.

Can I make a plea for some shared mutuality, as redundant as that might seem?

I believe that men and boys are solely responsible for what they think and what they imagine and even what they see, at the least the second time. It is sin for them to think lustfully about a woman, and they need to repent. They may also need to establish some boundaries about what they will look at on the internet, the TV, as well as real life in pursuit of holiness. And they need fathers to model this for them and teach it to them. They need to be taught the value and dignity of women as fellow image bearers of God.

I also believe that women are responsible to dress in such a way and to act in such a way that helps, not hinders. And by “helps” I don’t mean simply helps the boys. I mean helps the girls as well. Of course it should help the boys and the men. But let’s recognize that our society is overwhelmed with the message that the value of a woman is tied up in how she looks. When young women (or older women) live that out, they are not helping themselves or other women. They are often making the problem worse. They need to be taught the value and dignity of women as image bearers of God.

I further believe that fathers (and mothers) may be doing a bad job at teaching their daughters about modesty, and about the affects of their appearance and their actions on men. Young women may not even think about it. And if they don’t, I would suggest there may be a lack of fatherhood going on there. The man who should be the most important man in her life until the day she is married should be teaching her and guiding her.

Dads, it’s okay to say “No, you can’t wear that.” Or “No, that picture is not going on Facebook.” Calling it names like “slut shaming” simply isn’t helpful. And it isn’t accurate. Lovingly helping a young woman understand dress and modesty isn’t slut-shaming. It is called parenting. It’s called being a dad. Or a mom. Or in the best case, both a mom and a dad. Or at least, in the words of Titus 2, an older woman.

If these young women are, as one friend wrote, “innocently posting things,” let us step in to help them out of their innocence—gently and appropriately to be sure, but clearly and practically.

This is not a call for burkas, and no, it will not lead there (in spite of some people saying it does). It is not a call to dress unattractively, or never to wear something “cute.” It is simply a call to common sense and love, to portray human dignity and value.

My point is that it is both the responsibility of both men and women to address the problems.

Yes men are absolutely responsible for what they think and what they imagine and what they dream about. If a man has sinful or lustful thoughts, he is sinning. He needs repentance. And he needs not repent by blaming someone else, even if something they did might have helped.

But the idea that we are never responsible for someone else’s sin is simply not biblical.

Jesus was clear that those who cause a little one to stumble should be drowned with a millstone around their neck (Matt 18:6). That’s a bit more significant than being defriended on Facebook.

In Romans 14, Paul says “if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.” In other words, one person’s actions can be destructive to another person. Paul said he would never eat meat again if that would cause a brother to stumble (1 Cor 8:13).

In none of these cases, did Jesus or Paul blame the sinner. Paul’s admonition wasn’t, “Just think about something else,” or “Control yourself.” It was to show love and kindness to the person who was in danger of stumbling by refraining from doing something, even if that something was perfectly acceptable to do.

So why are these clear teachings of Scripture abandoned or ignored when it comes to simple issues like modesty?

The idea that we live in a community and have responsibilities toward each other goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. It didn’t stop when Facebook started. Neither men nor women get off the hook for the behavior of others, but we should act in common grace and love towards others because there is a real sense, a biblical sense, in which we are culpable in someone else’s sin.

So let us dispense quickly with the notion that our actions have no role in the sin of others. Such a view is unbiblical and unloving. It is self-centered and individualistic to refuse to think about the affect that our choices (even good ones, in Romans 14) may have in causing others to sin.

Dear friends, let us have some common sense on both sides in the pursuit of biblical holiness.

Be kind, loving towards each other. Have mercy and thoughtfulness towards others.