In a Facebook posting earlier today, John, you claimed you are aware that the Confessions do lots more things than bring on wrath. Yet you seem unable to articulate anything other than their "coercive" nature. And now in this reply to Paul's blog you tip your hat in the direction of dumping the Nicene Creed eventually so as to bring the whole of our ability to articulate our understanding of Scripture and the faith to just the Apostles' Creed. I know of many traditions that have gotten themselves to that point and though sincere and true brothers and sisters in Christ exist all over the place, a lot of some of the worst theology and most watered-down stances on Scripture, Jesus, and salvation come from precisely those places that long ago dispensed with articulating standards of belief. True, no one is "coerced" into toeing the line but the alleged "freedom" that a lack of confessional integrity opens up becomes freedom in pretty much the worst sense of the word. There is no "bottom," not bottom line, no way even to have a conversation with some pastors I've met up with over the years because there is not even a common vocabulary left with which to converse. (And by the way, in a lot of those places, even the Apostles' Creed eventually gets regarded with a wink and a knowing little smile.) No, I don't want the Confessions to be used ever and only coercively--they've got so much more going for them than that. Within them there is also delight and freedom to explore, to teach, to proclaim. And yes, we can always have conversations about individual portions of the Confessions--things we want to think more about, propose changes even. But the bare idea that just having Confessions means coercion is the order of the day--because all forms of toeing a line are, apparently, a bad thing--makes little sense to me. Is the New Testament coercive in that it appears pretty uncompromising on the claim "Jesus is Lord"? Is Paul coercive when he tells us that without Christ, we are flat out dead in our sins (even though many folks today and all along history have regarded that claims as bogus)? Doesn't having faith mean we submit ourselves to things and doesn't being a part of the graced community that just is the Church of Jesus Christ mean we draw lines, we make distinctions between what represents an accurate view of Scripture and of the faith once delivered to the saints and what counts as variants that ought not be accepted? If every time we say to someone, "That's not right" or "That's just not accurate to the tradition of our faith" we are being unduly coercive, then it strikes me we're a short hop, skip, and a jump away from not being able to uphold any even vaguely robust form of the faith at all.
To Mr. Ellis: The reference in this post to fishing and logging was to a speech I once gave and not specifically to a sermon. However, even in that speech I was not advocating specific public or political policies. I just suggested that these were key areas in which to try to apply biblically informed thinking. Similarly in sermons: I tell students in preaching classes--and reiterated this in a class on the Old Testament Prophets just this past week--that the wise preacher does not take sides on public policy and recognizes that Christians of good conscience and who are equally serious about things like stewardship and justice may well disagree outside of church on what is the best way to address such things in politics, personal behavior, etc. That's fine and preachers ought not be so directive as to deny this reality so that they can make room for robust conversations among fellow Christians. However, it is often true that even NAMING an issue as something to wrestle with is enough for some to accuse the preacher of being "all political." You don't have to take sides or pretend you're an expert on Issue X--just mentioning it counts as wrong in some people's books.
We teach our students to look for what the issues are in the biblical text and to help the congregation wonder where such issues exist yet today and how the Word of God addresses them. Given how many texts in both Testaments raise concerns about the treatment of the poor, justice, the value of God's physical creation, etc. it is very difficult to let the Bible speak to our world today if the preacher cannot even name the subject areas. That, as much as anything, was my point in this post.
And for what it's worth since there is a clear swipe here at the Seminary and its teaching as standing in the way of revival in the CRCNA: we teach our students that every single Sunday they always preach two texts: the one printed in the bulletin (Psalm 23) which is the small-t text for the week AND above all the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is always the capital-T Text for every sermon. We preach grace, hope, and joy every week--that's why we are there as preachers. Along the way we need to countenance the troubles in the Bible and their counterpart troubles today but that, too, is en route to and in service of the Gospel. This is the joy of preaching and its highest calling: to preach Christ and him crucified and raised from the dead!
And similarly if I misread your tone toward the Seminary I also apologize.
I know it can be hard for people to believe this but lots of ministers know that you don't have to advocate for some political position to get in trouble. Just suggesting that a given issue does need to be looked at in the light of the Gospel--and that therefore some new thinking on the issue is always possible--is enough to set many people off.
Every preacher knows that people often thank you for things you never said in a sermon even as they at other times assail you for things you likewise never said nor intended. The preacher is grateful for the former, chalking it up to the Spirit's endlessly clever ability to apply the sermon to people's often hurting hearts in ways that go beyond the preacher's comprehension. But the flip-side leaves preachers confused and at times hurt.
Of course, we all make mistakes and sometimes people criticize something in a sermon that really should not have been said and upon consideration, I have apologized for such times in my own preaching. But honestly, I've had far more times when people heard something I did not say or read way more into something I did say than I ever intended.
Thanks for taking the time for the conversation, Mr. Ellis!
Good piece, Josh! Of course . . . there are lots of layers here and you yourself point out several of them in your post. Let's not forget that the trio of Luke 15 parables had 2 distinct audiences when the chapter began: the "sinners" gathered around Jesus and the Pharisees who took issue with the company Jesus kept. BOTH audiences had things to hear in the parables. In the Lost Sheep one, the good news for the sinners at table with Jesus was that God seeks them and rejoices over them when they are found. The bad news for the Pharisees is that they fail (a la Ezekiel 34) to do such seeking themselves. The Pharisees may also be represented by the 99 sheep who did not wander, but Jesus' little line about the 99 "who have no need to repent" is surely a bit of sharp irony--EVERYONE needs to repent, as Jesus surely knew. The problem with the 99--and the reason they don't bother to seek the lost--is they have forgotten that they, too, are saved by grace alone issuing in their repentance. So also in the Prodigal Son--the Pharisees are surely the older brother. They don't welcome the prodigal back and complain about the bad company he no doubt kept (prostitutes!) while in the far country. Since the Pharisees are one of the 2 main audiences for this parable, it's not bad to focus on the older brother now and then, NOT because they have no before-and-after conversion story to share but because they forget that EVERYBODY has a before-and-after story in God's eyes and that is what should motivate our joy at the return of the prodigal and our desire to share that joy with others by going out and seeking the lost as in the first two Luke 15 parables.
One of the things we are trying to do through the aforementioned Lilly Grant program at the Seminary right now is listen to the church and start conversations in the wider church precisely to see if we can possibly come up with a common answer to the question Michael raises: What constitutes a "good sermon"? I doubt there is broad consensus on this and not sure if we can arrive at one but we're trying. I would love to engage in a broad spectrum education of also those who listen to sermons to help them be more incisive listeners and feedback providers but that is a big project. Still, these Lilly projects at CTS and in many other places and the wider consultations they are eliciting might advance this particular ball down the field.
To Larry (and I hope Keith is looking on as well): Thank you for your post (and thanks to Lou Tamminga for his initial reply). Just a few comments so as to let those reading these posts know that we at Calvin Seminary both know how vital preaching is and some of what we are doing to improve that preaching.
1) We work very hard at the Seminary to filter out those whom we deem to be ungifted as preachers. And we do filter some out, though no one knows about that as they never become preachers. But we do not simply "hold our noses" and palm off disastrous preachers on the church. That said, three other considerations: first, the shank of candidacy decisions was taken away from the Seminary years ago and is now handled by Synod and a denominational candidacy committee. They do good and diligent work, but we at the Seminary do get overruled now and then. Second, in terms of GPA and academic standards, we simply cannot deny graduation--and then through the denomination we cannot deny candidacy--to students who may be C+ or B- preachers. We can try to steer them into other pastoral avenues of chaplaincy, counseling, pastoral care positions, etc. but just because we suggest to a student that his preaching is rarely going to rise above the level of a middling sermon does not prevent that student from pursuing a pulpit ministry (and now and then somewhat bad preachers are convinced they are actually very good and only John Rottman and I seem unable to see it and so . . .). Finally, in recent years--again due to synodical decisions in this area--close to 50% of the candidates in the July "Banner" every year did NOT go to Calvin Seminary and so we are able to have essentially no influence over their preaching education whatsoever.
2) Ten years ago the way we taught preaching at Calvin Seminary changed significantly and our efforts at homiletics changed still more about about 6 years ago when we revamped the curriculum. That new curriculum included weaving preaching more intentionally throughout the student's education, including in every single Bible core course, which is now co-taught by both the Bible Department Professor and a Preaching Professor. I believe we have graduated much better preachers the last 5-10 years but it takes time for this to be felt far and wide across the denomination. Of course it's also true that even with our efforts, many CTS graduates are more "pretty good" than "excellent" but the point is, we are trying.
3) The Center for Excellence in Preaching exists to help our preachers through the website and our conferences (although often both seem more utilized by non-CRC preachers than CRC ones). This month alone nearly 15,000 different preachers have come to the website at least once (that is 15 times more than the total number of CRCNA pastors working right now so we know our reach is far and wide beyond the CRC too). The same number came during November. We offer outstanding resources but we cannot force anyone to use them (and I am often surprised to run into CRC pastors who seem to know nothing at all about what we offer).
4) More to your point here, Larry: The Center for Excellence in Preaching is currently in the first year of a 3-year $500,000 grant funded by Lilly Endowment as part of its nationwide effort to increase the quality of preaching and of homiletical education at the seminary level (if anyone thinks poor preaching is unique to the CRCNA, please note that Lilly Endowment is investing many millions of dollars to address this across the board). As part of this we are convening peer groups of pastors who are talking about how best to meet the communication challenges of preaching in the 21st century. What's more, the Seminary is harvesting the learning from these groups (this year alone involving over 100 pastors) to help us teach preaching and to help working preachers better and better. We are also working very hard on some new web tools that will become available in a year or so that will steer preachers to the very best of what the Internet has to offer preachers (and away from grim clearinghouses of bad stuff). Lilly Endowment is also helping those of us who teach preaching to network with other seminaries who have also received grants (about a dozen-and-a-half seminaries now) so that we can all help each other meet today's preaching challenges (and they are substantial).
All of this to say . . . we are working hard, we are listening to the church, we are devoting massive resources to produce the best preachers we can. Will we ever graduate an entire class of A+ preachers? Probably not. But will more and more preachers produce solid, thoughtful, pastoral sermons that teach Scripture, proclaim grace, and so equip people for lives of discipleship? Probably, and that is certainly our prayer.
In response to Larry: I don't think rehearsing and remembering the story or the cross is exactly a way to live in the thrall of the devil or to do an end-run on the victory of Easter. What do we do each time we come to the Lord's Table but remember: "This is my body . . . my blood." We do remember the cross--we never put it behind us. It is the locus of our salvation that leads us with gratitude to Easter and beyond. And anyway, I don't think the rhythms of the Christian Year per se keep us down or away from Easter. In fact, if you want to see something that really whallops one with a sense of sin and penitence, few things do this as well as the very serious Preparatory Form for the Lord's Supper that the CRCNA traditionally used the week before the sacrament. Just sayin' . . .
Hi, Daniel: I don't think the Greek language has any grammatical differentiation between "types" of imperatives: a verb is an imperative or it is not--I have never heard of strong or weak, urgent vs. common sense, command vs. good advice. In the case of Mt. 18, you have to believe that Jesus is sketching flat out what life in the kingdom looks like and so whenever Jesus says something like that, it's not take-it-or-leave-it good advice or common sense but rather what you simply MUST do as a citizen of God's kingdom community. My main concern with the imperative mood of late has centered on how we read the imperatives of the Gospels and particularly the imperatives in Paul and the other epistles. There is far too much "good advice" preaching these days as well as a kind of nascent legalism that turns the Gospel from the Good News that it's all God and all Grace to the bad news that it's still mostly up to us to live the right way or else! For Jesus but also for Paul, I take the imperatives not as saying "Become what you are not by behaving better so that God will love you and maybe save you on your merits." Rather, Paul's imperatives are always post-baptism and so are a call to "Be who you are!" That keeps the focus on God's Grace above all land keeps our Christian living as what (in good old Reformed fashion) it properly is: Gratitude.
I am not 100% sure I am following what you are trying to get at here but suffice it to say that as with all things, a big part of discipleship and of living for Jesus involves wisdom. It goes without saying that in the case of Mt. 18 only a fool would think this is a simple, black-and-white formula that is one-size fits all and/or that if this "procedure" were followed letter for letter the outcome would always be the same one way or the other. The Holy Spirit grants us also wisdom. I don't know that there is a valid differentiation between "literal command" and "command in principle," however, and I can see a lot of potential mayhem issuing from attempting to categorize the commands--if someone is rude to you and you remind him that Jesus commands us to love one another, you would not want this person to reply, "Well that's just a general principle not a literal imperative and so in this case I believe I don't need to love you because . . ."
I think all the commands are "literal" in the sense that they point to Christian practices we are all called to do. Does wisdom show us the nuances that differentiate the circumstances under which we carry these out? Yes. Also, wisdom might also be what leads to the insight that a certain situation--an abusive relationship or some such thing--is actually a sufficiently different and fraught situation that the circumstances Jesus envisioned in Mt. 18 really don't even apply here. This is a different scenario altogether. That wise approach can prevent people from manipulating Mt. 18 into a weapon with which to bludgeon someone EVERY time there is a dispute or argument or a perceive "sin" of one member against another. Maybe things happen that fall outside the boundaries of the kind of situation Jesus had in mind in Mt. 18 and so some other text applies.
Jeff: There may be something to your distinction to tease out the category of "wisdom" as a way to re-label (and thus re-assess) what I called moralistic and "To Do" preaching. Even so, however, I'd offer the caution that as pastors we are not first and foremost called to proclaim wisdom in the Proverbs sense of that. We are called to proclaim in every sermon Good News, the Gospel, that just is Christ Jesus and Him crucified and raised from the dead. Within that properly defined context of grace, we surely talk about the practicalities of life in Christ and of discipleship and that surely includes things like wisdom and the kinds of moral warnings Paul often proffers in his Epistles. But it's all wrapped up in grace and in everything we do as being a grateful response to the grace that saves us and in which we stand.
Wisdom is a legitimate form of biblical literature but it is as fully possible to preach on that wrongly as anything else. When wisdom becomes a stealth form of health-and-wealth success preaching that proceeds on and on in sermon after sermon without due reference to our spiritual situation as people who dwell "in Christ," then even wisdom becomes the kind of can-do moral therapeutic Deism of which so much of North America is guilty as it is.
Perhaps if we restrict what I tried to say to formal sermons only, then I am guilty of an overstatement. Put it this way: the Scriptures affirm and the Church has long also claimed that "faith comes by hearing." The Spirit works through testimony, witness, teaching, preaching but again and again it is what is spoken and heard that makes the difference. It started with a bang on Pentecost and in various ways has continued unabated ever since!
As the person who authored the Biblical & Theological part of the 2010 Study Committee Report on this issue (http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/synodical/Migration.pdf), I appreciate this post. It's exceedingly easy to find biblical data on treating strangers with kindness. But it often clashes with those who also point out that we are to obey the governing authorities and thus--unlike in ancient Israel where foreigners were not breaking laws to be among the Israelites--how do we negotiate our commitment to divine-like hospitality with our relationship to the state? Tough questions but our default setting should be to find ways to live out the gospel to its fullest extent and let that desire frame our larger discussions.
Posted in: Our Confessional Crisis
In a Facebook posting earlier today, John, you claimed you are aware that the Confessions do lots more things than bring on wrath. Yet you seem unable to articulate anything other than their "coercive" nature. And now in this reply to Paul's blog you tip your hat in the direction of dumping the Nicene Creed eventually so as to bring the whole of our ability to articulate our understanding of Scripture and the faith to just the Apostles' Creed. I know of many traditions that have gotten themselves to that point and though sincere and true brothers and sisters in Christ exist all over the place, a lot of some of the worst theology and most watered-down stances on Scripture, Jesus, and salvation come from precisely those places that long ago dispensed with articulating standards of belief. True, no one is "coerced" into toeing the line but the alleged "freedom" that a lack of confessional integrity opens up becomes freedom in pretty much the worst sense of the word. There is no "bottom," not bottom line, no way even to have a conversation with some pastors I've met up with over the years because there is not even a common vocabulary left with which to converse. (And by the way, in a lot of those places, even the Apostles' Creed eventually gets regarded with a wink and a knowing little smile.) No, I don't want the Confessions to be used ever and only coercively--they've got so much more going for them than that. Within them there is also delight and freedom to explore, to teach, to proclaim. And yes, we can always have conversations about individual portions of the Confessions--things we want to think more about, propose changes even. But the bare idea that just having Confessions means coercion is the order of the day--because all forms of toeing a line are, apparently, a bad thing--makes little sense to me. Is the New Testament coercive in that it appears pretty uncompromising on the claim "Jesus is Lord"? Is Paul coercive when he tells us that without Christ, we are flat out dead in our sins (even though many folks today and all along history have regarded that claims as bogus)? Doesn't having faith mean we submit ourselves to things and doesn't being a part of the graced community that just is the Church of Jesus Christ mean we draw lines, we make distinctions between what represents an accurate view of Scripture and of the faith once delivered to the saints and what counts as variants that ought not be accepted? If every time we say to someone, "That's not right" or "That's just not accurate to the tradition of our faith" we are being unduly coercive, then it strikes me we're a short hop, skip, and a jump away from not being able to uphold any even vaguely robust form of the faith at all.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
To Mr. Ellis: The reference in this post to fishing and logging was to a speech I once gave and not specifically to a sermon. However, even in that speech I was not advocating specific public or political policies. I just suggested that these were key areas in which to try to apply biblically informed thinking. Similarly in sermons: I tell students in preaching classes--and reiterated this in a class on the Old Testament Prophets just this past week--that the wise preacher does not take sides on public policy and recognizes that Christians of good conscience and who are equally serious about things like stewardship and justice may well disagree outside of church on what is the best way to address such things in politics, personal behavior, etc. That's fine and preachers ought not be so directive as to deny this reality so that they can make room for robust conversations among fellow Christians. However, it is often true that even NAMING an issue as something to wrestle with is enough for some to accuse the preacher of being "all political." You don't have to take sides or pretend you're an expert on Issue X--just mentioning it counts as wrong in some people's books.
We teach our students to look for what the issues are in the biblical text and to help the congregation wonder where such issues exist yet today and how the Word of God addresses them. Given how many texts in both Testaments raise concerns about the treatment of the poor, justice, the value of God's physical creation, etc. it is very difficult to let the Bible speak to our world today if the preacher cannot even name the subject areas. That, as much as anything, was my point in this post.
And for what it's worth since there is a clear swipe here at the Seminary and its teaching as standing in the way of revival in the CRCNA: we teach our students that every single Sunday they always preach two texts: the one printed in the bulletin (Psalm 23) which is the small-t text for the week AND above all the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is always the capital-T Text for every sermon. We preach grace, hope, and joy every week--that's why we are there as preachers. Along the way we need to countenance the troubles in the Bible and their counterpart troubles today but that, too, is en route to and in service of the Gospel. This is the joy of preaching and its highest calling: to preach Christ and him crucified and raised from the dead!
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
And similarly if I misread your tone toward the Seminary I also apologize.
I know it can be hard for people to believe this but lots of ministers know that you don't have to advocate for some political position to get in trouble. Just suggesting that a given issue does need to be looked at in the light of the Gospel--and that therefore some new thinking on the issue is always possible--is enough to set many people off.
Every preacher knows that people often thank you for things you never said in a sermon even as they at other times assail you for things you likewise never said nor intended. The preacher is grateful for the former, chalking it up to the Spirit's endlessly clever ability to apply the sermon to people's often hurting hearts in ways that go beyond the preacher's comprehension. But the flip-side leaves preachers confused and at times hurt.
Of course, we all make mistakes and sometimes people criticize something in a sermon that really should not have been said and upon consideration, I have apologized for such times in my own preaching. But honestly, I've had far more times when people heard something I did not say or read way more into something I did say than I ever intended.
Thanks for taking the time for the conversation, Mr. Ellis!
Posted in: Please Stop It with the Older Brother
Good piece, Josh! Of course . . . there are lots of layers here and you yourself point out several of them in your post. Let's not forget that the trio of Luke 15 parables had 2 distinct audiences when the chapter began: the "sinners" gathered around Jesus and the Pharisees who took issue with the company Jesus kept. BOTH audiences had things to hear in the parables. In the Lost Sheep one, the good news for the sinners at table with Jesus was that God seeks them and rejoices over them when they are found. The bad news for the Pharisees is that they fail (a la Ezekiel 34) to do such seeking themselves. The Pharisees may also be represented by the 99 sheep who did not wander, but Jesus' little line about the 99 "who have no need to repent" is surely a bit of sharp irony--EVERYONE needs to repent, as Jesus surely knew. The problem with the 99--and the reason they don't bother to seek the lost--is they have forgotten that they, too, are saved by grace alone issuing in their repentance. So also in the Prodigal Son--the Pharisees are surely the older brother. They don't welcome the prodigal back and complain about the bad company he no doubt kept (prostitutes!) while in the far country. Since the Pharisees are one of the 2 main audiences for this parable, it's not bad to focus on the older brother now and then, NOT because they have no before-and-after conversion story to share but because they forget that EVERYBODY has a before-and-after story in God's eyes and that is what should motivate our joy at the return of the prodigal and our desire to share that joy with others by going out and seeking the lost as in the first two Luke 15 parables.
Maybe . . .
Thanks for the provocative post!
Scott
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
One of the things we are trying to do through the aforementioned Lilly Grant program at the Seminary right now is listen to the church and start conversations in the wider church precisely to see if we can possibly come up with a common answer to the question Michael raises: What constitutes a "good sermon"? I doubt there is broad consensus on this and not sure if we can arrive at one but we're trying. I would love to engage in a broad spectrum education of also those who listen to sermons to help them be more incisive listeners and feedback providers but that is a big project. Still, these Lilly projects at CTS and in many other places and the wider consultations they are eliciting might advance this particular ball down the field.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
To Larry (and I hope Keith is looking on as well): Thank you for your post (and thanks to Lou Tamminga for his initial reply). Just a few comments so as to let those reading these posts know that we at Calvin Seminary both know how vital preaching is and some of what we are doing to improve that preaching.
1) We work very hard at the Seminary to filter out those whom we deem to be ungifted as preachers. And we do filter some out, though no one knows about that as they never become preachers. But we do not simply "hold our noses" and palm off disastrous preachers on the church. That said, three other considerations: first, the shank of candidacy decisions was taken away from the Seminary years ago and is now handled by Synod and a denominational candidacy committee. They do good and diligent work, but we at the Seminary do get overruled now and then. Second, in terms of GPA and academic standards, we simply cannot deny graduation--and then through the denomination we cannot deny candidacy--to students who may be C+ or B- preachers. We can try to steer them into other pastoral avenues of chaplaincy, counseling, pastoral care positions, etc. but just because we suggest to a student that his preaching is rarely going to rise above the level of a middling sermon does not prevent that student from pursuing a pulpit ministry (and now and then somewhat bad preachers are convinced they are actually very good and only John Rottman and I seem unable to see it and so . . .). Finally, in recent years--again due to synodical decisions in this area--close to 50% of the candidates in the July "Banner" every year did NOT go to Calvin Seminary and so we are able to have essentially no influence over their preaching education whatsoever.
2) Ten years ago the way we taught preaching at Calvin Seminary changed significantly and our efforts at homiletics changed still more about about 6 years ago when we revamped the curriculum. That new curriculum included weaving preaching more intentionally throughout the student's education, including in every single Bible core course, which is now co-taught by both the Bible Department Professor and a Preaching Professor. I believe we have graduated much better preachers the last 5-10 years but it takes time for this to be felt far and wide across the denomination. Of course it's also true that even with our efforts, many CTS graduates are more "pretty good" than "excellent" but the point is, we are trying.
3) The Center for Excellence in Preaching exists to help our preachers through the website and our conferences (although often both seem more utilized by non-CRC preachers than CRC ones). This month alone nearly 15,000 different preachers have come to the website at least once (that is 15 times more than the total number of CRCNA pastors working right now so we know our reach is far and wide beyond the CRC too). The same number came during November. We offer outstanding resources but we cannot force anyone to use them (and I am often surprised to run into CRC pastors who seem to know nothing at all about what we offer).
4) More to your point here, Larry: The Center for Excellence in Preaching is currently in the first year of a 3-year $500,000 grant funded by Lilly Endowment as part of its nationwide effort to increase the quality of preaching and of homiletical education at the seminary level (if anyone thinks poor preaching is unique to the CRCNA, please note that Lilly Endowment is investing many millions of dollars to address this across the board). As part of this we are convening peer groups of pastors who are talking about how best to meet the communication challenges of preaching in the 21st century. What's more, the Seminary is harvesting the learning from these groups (this year alone involving over 100 pastors) to help us teach preaching and to help working preachers better and better. We are also working very hard on some new web tools that will become available in a year or so that will steer preachers to the very best of what the Internet has to offer preachers (and away from grim clearinghouses of bad stuff). Lilly Endowment is also helping those of us who teach preaching to network with other seminaries who have also received grants (about a dozen-and-a-half seminaries now) so that we can all help each other meet today's preaching challenges (and they are substantial).
All of this to say . . . we are working hard, we are listening to the church, we are devoting massive resources to produce the best preachers we can. Will we ever graduate an entire class of A+ preachers? Probably not. But will more and more preachers produce solid, thoughtful, pastoral sermons that teach Scripture, proclaim grace, and so equip people for lives of discipleship? Probably, and that is certainly our prayer.
-- Scott Hoezee
Posted in: Mardi Gras
In response to Larry: I don't think rehearsing and remembering the story or the cross is exactly a way to live in the thrall of the devil or to do an end-run on the victory of Easter. What do we do each time we come to the Lord's Table but remember: "This is my body . . . my blood." We do remember the cross--we never put it behind us. It is the locus of our salvation that leads us with gratitude to Easter and beyond. And anyway, I don't think the rhythms of the Christian Year per se keep us down or away from Easter. In fact, if you want to see something that really whallops one with a sense of sin and penitence, few things do this as well as the very serious Preparatory Form for the Lord's Supper that the CRCNA traditionally used the week before the sacrament. Just sayin' . . .
Posted in: Advice or Imperative: How Can We Know?
Hi, Daniel: I don't think the Greek language has any grammatical differentiation between "types" of imperatives: a verb is an imperative or it is not--I have never heard of strong or weak, urgent vs. common sense, command vs. good advice. In the case of Mt. 18, you have to believe that Jesus is sketching flat out what life in the kingdom looks like and so whenever Jesus says something like that, it's not take-it-or-leave-it good advice or common sense but rather what you simply MUST do as a citizen of God's kingdom community. My main concern with the imperative mood of late has centered on how we read the imperatives of the Gospels and particularly the imperatives in Paul and the other epistles. There is far too much "good advice" preaching these days as well as a kind of nascent legalism that turns the Gospel from the Good News that it's all God and all Grace to the bad news that it's still mostly up to us to live the right way or else! For Jesus but also for Paul, I take the imperatives not as saying "Become what you are not by behaving better so that God will love you and maybe save you on your merits." Rather, Paul's imperatives are always post-baptism and so are a call to "Be who you are!" That keeps the focus on God's Grace above all land keeps our Christian living as what (in good old Reformed fashion) it properly is: Gratitude.
Posted in: Advice or Imperative: How Can We Know?
I am not 100% sure I am following what you are trying to get at here but suffice it to say that as with all things, a big part of discipleship and of living for Jesus involves wisdom. It goes without saying that in the case of Mt. 18 only a fool would think this is a simple, black-and-white formula that is one-size fits all and/or that if this "procedure" were followed letter for letter the outcome would always be the same one way or the other. The Holy Spirit grants us also wisdom. I don't know that there is a valid differentiation between "literal command" and "command in principle," however, and I can see a lot of potential mayhem issuing from attempting to categorize the commands--if someone is rude to you and you remind him that Jesus commands us to love one another, you would not want this person to reply, "Well that's just a general principle not a literal imperative and so in this case I believe I don't need to love you because . . ."
I think all the commands are "literal" in the sense that they point to Christian practices we are all called to do. Does wisdom show us the nuances that differentiate the circumstances under which we carry these out? Yes. Also, wisdom might also be what leads to the insight that a certain situation--an abusive relationship or some such thing--is actually a sufficiently different and fraught situation that the circumstances Jesus envisioned in Mt. 18 really don't even apply here. This is a different scenario altogether. That wise approach can prevent people from manipulating Mt. 18 into a weapon with which to bludgeon someone EVERY time there is a dispute or argument or a perceive "sin" of one member against another. Maybe things happen that fall outside the boundaries of the kind of situation Jesus had in mind in Mt. 18 and so some other text applies.
Just thinking out loud here . . .
Scott
Posted in: What's a Preacher to Do?
Jeff: There may be something to your distinction to tease out the category of "wisdom" as a way to re-label (and thus re-assess) what I called moralistic and "To Do" preaching. Even so, however, I'd offer the caution that as pastors we are not first and foremost called to proclaim wisdom in the Proverbs sense of that. We are called to proclaim in every sermon Good News, the Gospel, that just is Christ Jesus and Him crucified and raised from the dead. Within that properly defined context of grace, we surely talk about the practicalities of life in Christ and of discipleship and that surely includes things like wisdom and the kinds of moral warnings Paul often proffers in his Epistles. But it's all wrapped up in grace and in everything we do as being a grateful response to the grace that saves us and in which we stand.
Wisdom is a legitimate form of biblical literature but it is as fully possible to preach on that wrongly as anything else. When wisdom becomes a stealth form of health-and-wealth success preaching that proceeds on and on in sermon after sermon without due reference to our spiritual situation as people who dwell "in Christ," then even wisdom becomes the kind of can-do moral therapeutic Deism of which so much of North America is guilty as it is.
Posted in: What's a Preacher to Do?
Perhaps if we restrict what I tried to say to formal sermons only, then I am guilty of an overstatement. Put it this way: the Scriptures affirm and the Church has long also claimed that "faith comes by hearing." The Spirit works through testimony, witness, teaching, preaching but again and again it is what is spoken and heard that makes the difference. It started with a bang on Pentecost and in various ways has continued unabated ever since!
Posted in: Why Does the CRC Encourage Congregations to Speak Up on Behalf of Undocumented Immigrants?
As the person who authored the Biblical & Theological part of the 2010 Study Committee Report on this issue (http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/synodical/Migration.pdf), I appreciate this post. It's exceedingly easy to find biblical data on treating strangers with kindness. But it often clashes with those who also point out that we are to obey the governing authorities and thus--unlike in ancient Israel where foreigners were not breaking laws to be among the Israelites--how do we negotiate our commitment to divine-like hospitality with our relationship to the state? Tough questions but our default setting should be to find ways to live out the gospel to its fullest extent and let that desire frame our larger discussions.