Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Saturday, 26 January 2013
Friday, 25 January 2013
Sermon application
Preachers: If somebody knew nothing about the people which you preach to, except that he was given 10 of your sermons...
... then would he have a good picture of the particular struggles of your flock, living in the specific situation of your culture and sub-cultures, after listening to them? After listening, would he be able to say, "Well, the particular pressures for someone living there are this, this and this, and examples of what kind of temptation comes along commonly is that one and that one, because in their society the world is pressuring with this and the other..."
I submit that that's basically a litmus test of whether the preacher is applying his preaching.
... then would he have a good picture of the particular struggles of your flock, living in the specific situation of your culture and sub-cultures, after listening to them? After listening, would he be able to say, "Well, the particular pressures for someone living there are this, this and this, and examples of what kind of temptation comes along commonly is that one and that one, because in their society the world is pressuring with this and the other..."
I submit that that's basically a litmus test of whether the preacher is applying his preaching.
One-way traffic
One of the world's present ploys to undermine Christianity is, to brandish everything that they disagree with as mean, bigotted, narrow.
Not many people like being called nasty names, so there's the temptation to soft-pedal, down-play, compromise.
However, this traffic is one-way. When Christians critique contemporary society, the world feels little to no pressure to conform in the other direction. That's to be expected - it's the power of the Spirit of God bringing new life which brings true positive change, not words only. Unaccompanied words without the Spirit's blessing won't have a long-term effect in being salt and light in a corrupt society, much less in winning over the slaves of sin.
The long-term upshot of that is that Christians need to know where they stand, and hold the line. The rise of feminism has caused many evangelicals to be mealy-mouthed about the Bible's teaching on the role relationships of men and women, and especially male leadership. What did they get in return for their soft-pedalling? The world rewarded them by stepping up the ante to a new level - demanding that, since (allegedly) there are no differences between men and women, we must now be called nasty names unless we down-play the iniquity and unnaturalness of homosexuality. Many have trimmed their sails to this new wind, and speak only in terms of "not God's best" or using the language of psychological condition instead of human rebellion against God's holy law. Many no longer speak at all, in order to appear more winsome.
The compromise started much further back, when the world demanded that the speculations based on philosophical assumptions of naturalism should be received as "science", and that Christians should abandon their doctrine of creation. If we didn't, then they'd call us those rude names again (fundamentalist! Anti-science!). Very many agreed to do this, in order to keep up the general level of nice-ness. Didn't work; won't work; will never work. Well, it's apparently working for the world, because many churches which previously gave a clear voice now don't. It's working for them, not for us. When will we realise the rules of the game, and play with understanding? You can't win authentic disciples by equivocating the truth, because the content of authentic discipleship is necessarily and unalterably fixed by the word of God. You can't build the temple of God with the perishing materials of the present age's whims, because God has promised to bless the things the world calls foolishness.
So, which is it to be? Be mealy-mouthed so that the world gives you some empty praise for a few minutes before moving on to the next doctrine on which it demands you cave in? Or be faithful to Christ so that one day you will hear him say "Well done, good and faithful servant" and enter into the enjoyment of his everlasting glory?
Not many people like being called nasty names, so there's the temptation to soft-pedal, down-play, compromise.
However, this traffic is one-way. When Christians critique contemporary society, the world feels little to no pressure to conform in the other direction. That's to be expected - it's the power of the Spirit of God bringing new life which brings true positive change, not words only. Unaccompanied words without the Spirit's blessing won't have a long-term effect in being salt and light in a corrupt society, much less in winning over the slaves of sin.
The long-term upshot of that is that Christians need to know where they stand, and hold the line. The rise of feminism has caused many evangelicals to be mealy-mouthed about the Bible's teaching on the role relationships of men and women, and especially male leadership. What did they get in return for their soft-pedalling? The world rewarded them by stepping up the ante to a new level - demanding that, since (allegedly) there are no differences between men and women, we must now be called nasty names unless we down-play the iniquity and unnaturalness of homosexuality. Many have trimmed their sails to this new wind, and speak only in terms of "not God's best" or using the language of psychological condition instead of human rebellion against God's holy law. Many no longer speak at all, in order to appear more winsome.
The compromise started much further back, when the world demanded that the speculations based on philosophical assumptions of naturalism should be received as "science", and that Christians should abandon their doctrine of creation. If we didn't, then they'd call us those rude names again (fundamentalist! Anti-science!). Very many agreed to do this, in order to keep up the general level of nice-ness. Didn't work; won't work; will never work. Well, it's apparently working for the world, because many churches which previously gave a clear voice now don't. It's working for them, not for us. When will we realise the rules of the game, and play with understanding? You can't win authentic disciples by equivocating the truth, because the content of authentic discipleship is necessarily and unalterably fixed by the word of God. You can't build the temple of God with the perishing materials of the present age's whims, because God has promised to bless the things the world calls foolishness.
So, which is it to be? Be mealy-mouthed so that the world gives you some empty praise for a few minutes before moving on to the next doctrine on which it demands you cave in? Or be faithful to Christ so that one day you will hear him say "Well done, good and faithful servant" and enter into the enjoyment of his everlasting glory?
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Creation road trip
An interesting account of the dishonesty of secularist journalists and pro-evolution campaigners. Open, fair debate is one thing... what they get up to much of the time is something else.
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
Why free societies must ultimately be Christ-worshipping societies
I'm not making any particular comment either way on the rest of this article; though let me say that whilst the world has many reasons to be grateful for God's work in America, I also think the idea of "American exceptionalism" is both idolatrous and has been harmful to the world at times when Americans have gone to the mission field and been insensitive to cultural issues... but this quote is so spot-on that it deserves repeating again and again:
"Not having imbibed the Enlightenment foolishness that people are basically good, the founders understood that in order for a society to prosper without big government, its citizens have to hold themselves accountable to something other than — higher than — the brute force of the state."
http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/fiscal-conservatism-needs-social-conservatism/
Population drivel
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html
David Attenborough is a very educated and travelled man ...
... so why is he spreading the myth that the world keeps being invited to solve the problem of famine in East Africa because of something inherently problematic about human population growth?
The hard truth is that the world keeps being invited to solve the problem of famine in East Africa, because the world keeps being willing to do so. The governments of Eastern Africa could easily solve those problems themselves. However, if they devoted their own budget and resources to doing so, then they'd reduce their own budgets and resources. It's simple economics. Since someone else (whether the World Food Programme or other UN branch, or private charity like Oxfam etc.) is already paying for this part of their budget, via the mechanism of disaster relief when the crisis comes, what would be the point in planning ahead. Other than some compassion for their own suffering peoples, that is... ? Sadly such compassion is not present in sufficient quantity to overturn the economic calculation being made.
If you bail me out every time I do X, then I have no incentive to invest my own resources in avoiding X. Follow the money and the thought-lines of selfish hearts.
It's a tricky problem now that we are in this situation, to work out how to extricate ourselves from it. I propose no easy answers. But I'm sure that picking on a convenient scape-goat as Attenborough does is not the answer.
David Attenborough is a very educated and travelled man ...
... so why is he spreading the myth that the world keeps being invited to solve the problem of famine in East Africa because of something inherently problematic about human population growth?
The hard truth is that the world keeps being invited to solve the problem of famine in East Africa, because the world keeps being willing to do so. The governments of Eastern Africa could easily solve those problems themselves. However, if they devoted their own budget and resources to doing so, then they'd reduce their own budgets and resources. It's simple economics. Since someone else (whether the World Food Programme or other UN branch, or private charity like Oxfam etc.) is already paying for this part of their budget, via the mechanism of disaster relief when the crisis comes, what would be the point in planning ahead. Other than some compassion for their own suffering peoples, that is... ? Sadly such compassion is not present in sufficient quantity to overturn the economic calculation being made.
If you bail me out every time I do X, then I have no incentive to invest my own resources in avoiding X. Follow the money and the thought-lines of selfish hearts.
It's a tricky problem now that we are in this situation, to work out how to extricate ourselves from it. I propose no easy answers. But I'm sure that picking on a convenient scape-goat as Attenborough does is not the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
