In the past year the Lord has led me to the writings and ministry of Paul Tripp. What a blessing of transformation in my life. My latest read has been Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands. I am only on chapter 2 but so far it has been wonderful. Here is a sample. Tripp is discussing the “spiritual cut-and-paste system” of Christian ministering of the word:

“In this kind of ministry, self is still at the center, personal need is the focus, and personal happiness remains the goal. But a truly effective ministry of the Word must confront our self-focus and self-absorption at its roots, opening us up to the vastness of a God-defined, God-centered world. Unless this happens, we will use the promises, principles, and commands of the Word to serve the thing we really love: ourselves. This may be why many people read and hear God’s Word regularly while their lives remain unchanged. Only when the rain of the Word penetrates the roots of the problem does lasting change occur.”

(Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands, p.24-25)

By the way that picture of Tripp....yes....the 'stache is real. How can you not listen to a man with the discipline to have a mustache like that????

The goal of preaching is to be faithful to the text.  But in order to be faithful to the text do I need to communicate it in such a way that people are able to “get it”?  Would I really be faithful to the text if I stood behind the pulpit and ripped off a few Greek sentences of the original text and then sat down?  I mean how much more faithful to the text can you be than just saying the original then shutting up and sitting down?  Is it possible that being faithful to the text means preaching it the way Jesus would? 

One of the pitfalls of verse by verse preaching through a book of the Bible is sometimes you get to a text where your congregation is not at.  Let me give you an example.  I do verse-by-verse preaching with our teenagers.  A decent portion of our teenagers are unchurched: their parents do not attend, a fair portion does not attend on a Sunday themselves, most are just beginning to discover who Jesus is. 

I have been preaching through Ephesians.  As we have went through the first 3 chapters it has been relatively easy to preach on.  We are looking at God’s great global purpose of redeeming broken people and a broken world.  We have frequently discussed that part of this process of redemption is restoring our broken relationships with one another.  The students have a context for understanding that.  But when we get to talking about life within the body they have little context for understanding that. 

Ephesians 4-6 is all about life within the body.  So, in order to remain faithful to the text it means that I have to have ridiculously long introductions to get the students to a spot of understanding.  You may not read it in a preaching manual (and I would never pretend to be qualified to write one) but I think it is perfectly acceptable to stop “preaching” and start “teaching” if you can tell that you’re hearers are totally clueless.  Wouldn’t it be unfaithful to the text to just keep plodding along (of course spiritualizing it by saying stuff about the power of God in His Word) while your congregation is totally lost?  Didn’t Jesus stop for questions?  Didn’t he welcome interruptions? 

I am not saying that we need to always preach in a dialogue.  I am merely saying that we need to be certain to preach where our people are…if we don’t then we are only stoking our own ego’s…and not being faithful to the text or the God it proclaims.

Quite a bit of this can be done in the preparatory stage.  It might mean a longer introduction and taking a couple more weeks on the text—but so what, the goal is being faithful to the text.  So, I would encourage preachers to spend just as much time “expositing” their congregation as they do “expositing” the text.  Then put those two together into a sermon.  And if you get up there and realize you goofed and are preaching over their heads—then don’t just get through your notes…be humble enough to start asking questions or something to get back on the same page. 

So, what do you think?  Am I a heretic?

For the second time I am reading Ed Stetzer’s landmark book Breaking the Missional Code. I agree with most if it. But one thing I am having a hard time with is this statement and the implications that come out of it:

“Our growing cultural diversity requires a church within the reach of every people group, population segment, and cultural environment if we are to be faithful to the Great Commission”.

The implication here is that if you live in an area that has lots of “cowboy’s” then perhaps a cowboy church would help reach people with the gospel. Or maybe you live around a bunch of skateboarder’s; then you have a skateboarding church. Maybe it’s fried chicken that unites your community; well, then you obviously have the green light to call it Southern Baptist.

I get the principle and it seems to make sense…but…is it biblical? I do see the idea of being missional and contextualizing the message so that people can even hear the gospel. In other words if I go to Korea then I need to either learn to speak Korean or get a translator. Yes, the gospel is powerful and it is the word of God that changes lives—but it needs to be heard in your own language or else it just sounds like babbling. So, I get that. And I get that a cowboy hears the message of the gospel differently than a banker from Vermont. But to me having a cowboy church is contrary to the heavenly scene of people from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language.

Maybe to cross a cultural boundary I need to speak a little cowboy and maybe learn how to catch a greased pig. But shouldn’t the gospel be the thing that unites people instead of our culture? Isn’t the gospel meant to break culture so that there is no longer slave nor free, Greek nor Scythian, cowboy nor Indian Native American.

Help me understand…

UPDATE: Here is an example that might make my point more clear. I am a Clevand Browns fan. Now, let's pretend that I live in a community of Browns fans, all eight of them. If I want to take the gospel to Browns fans then I need to find some commong ground. So, I share the gospel with them over an argument over whether or not Brady Quinn or Derek Anderson should be the starting QB. Let's just imagine that a few of them end up coming to know Christ. We decide to plant a Brown's Church.

I preach with a football helmet on. The fans wear those dog masks and have those crazy dog bones. We even let a few of the extra chunky guys come to church with their shirts off (only the guys though). We are certain to let out our services before the game starts (then we have "fellowship" time where we watch the games together). And the few times when the Browns get a prime time game we hold special services. It is our goal to attract more and more Browns fans to church.

Now, I know this is a silly example...but have I really described church as it should be? Wouldn't a better example of church be that a Browns fan and a Steeler's fan link arms, skip out on a football game, and go share the gospel together to a lost Raven's fan.

Maybe I'm missing something...again...help me understand...

Dr. Mohler is preaching a powerful, insightful series of sermons on the Lord's Prayer in Southern's Chapel this spring. In his inimitable style, he addresses the issue of prayer that the church needs to hear today. After all, we have turned prayer into our own personal litany of repetitive, meaningless phrases of little thought and consequence.

The introductory sermon begins on February 10. The sermons are all well worth downloading, hearing, and contemplating. Once this is done....get on your knees and start praying!

My friend Chris and I used to joke about our desire to not be “that guy”. You don’t want to be “that guy”. You know, “that guy” that you point at with the comb-over that fools nobody, you don’t want to be him. Or “that guy” decked out in eye black, pinstripes, $125 cleats, and wrist bands playing church-league softball. You don’t want to be “that guy”. Or “that guy” that still sports a mullet, drives a 1980’s Camaro, smoke’s Camel cigarettes, and drives through town waving a 12 foot Old Dixie. Nobody really likes “that guy”. Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite is “that guy”. Nobody wants to be him.

There is one “that guy” that I definitely do not want to be. It’s “that guy” that struts up to Jesus confident of his acceptance; like the confident batter that begins walking to first in the certainty that the umpire will call “ball four”. I do not want to be “that guy” because it doesn’t end well for “that guy”:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

I have to be honest; Matthew 7 has always left me a little uncomfortable. I always get a little afraid that maybe I will be “that guy”: you know, the guy that stands before Jesus full of confidence, only to get thrown into the fires of hell. Please do not misunderstand me. I do have confidence that I will be with Christ for eternity. But I think the poor saps in Matthew 7 had that same confidence. And if I am being honest, that scares me a little bit.

Audio is now available from the Sovereign Grace Ministries Pastors Conference. 

This was really helpful for me.  In the past couple of months the Lord has changed the way I think about blogging.  Tony Reinke helps to confirm that by his message at the Band of Bloggers gathering:  How can bloggers steward the teaching of the young, old, and dead?

Dan Phillips makes an excellent point with this one: Porn and paper pastors.  This article is not about pornography or pastors that struggle with pornography.  This article is about those that follow “paper pastors” instead of the one’s that God has given them.

Last week I linked to Kevin DeYoung’s series on high places.  A couple days ago he put up his final one, Part 5: Prayerlessness. 

Scot Sterner gives great counsel on “What to do with criticism”.  (HT: Z)

The video for LeCrae’s Don’t Waste Your Life is now available:

(HT: JT)

NFL Draft is this weekend.  I am going to be really sad when the Browns trade Brady Quinn, Braylon Edwards, and who knows who else to get a host of rookies that will be traded in two more years for another host of rookies.  Still wondering why I was happy when the Browns signed Mangini as their coach. 

I thought this was a pretty good summary by John Samson on the 5 Big Myths About Calvinism.  I’m sure an Arminian could easily write 5 Myths about Arminians as well.  But articles like these are beneficial to keep us from discussing around the issues and burning straw men in the process. 

What we’ve seen in our churches is now proven in statistics:  The SBC is continuing to decline says Ed Stetzer.

Thoughtful article by C. Michael Patton on The Forgotten Pulpit.  (And he means pulpit literally).

Alongside The Gospel Coalition, D.A. Carson and John Piper had an evening session about The pastor as Scholar and The Scholar as Pastor.  Thankfully Andy Naselli live-blogged it here.

If you get a chance watch Piper’s message from The Gospel Coalition:

“You might be the only Jesus that some people ever see”. Undoubtedly, you have heard that phrase. It is supposed to motivate us to holiness—especially around unbelievers. And it’s a decent statement. But, have you ever totally blown it around an unbeliever? If you are the only Jesus they will ever see then their view of Him is going to be pretty shallow. Perhaps, you said something stupid. Maybe it was something that you did that Jesus would probably not have done. Is your witness totally blown at this point?

It is my opinion that evangelicals have bought into the myth that a follower of Jesus has to be perfectly like Jesus in order to be an effective witness. This is not to say that holiness is not important. This is not to deny that we are to adorn the gospel with our lives. But if the gospel requires perfect examples of Jesus then nobody is going to come to embrace the God of the gospel.

One of the consequences of this myth is that discouraged believers struggle with personal evangelism. Because they are very aware of their sinfulness and because they assume they will “blow it” by their lives they are timid in sharing the gospel. I understand that often this is an excuse for not engaging unbelievers, but nonetheless, such a fear is present. Alongside this are believers that shamefully stop engaging an unbeliever with the gospel once you’ve “blown it”.

Perhaps the biggest consequence is that in order to be perfect examples of Jesus we fake it. We are often surface and inauthentic as we engage unbelievers. We do this because to really be authentic would be to show our brokenness. And because the gospel that is often shared is “Jesus will fix your life” we make a really poor example of an “abundant life”. So we fake it; and that is perhaps the most ineffective witness that we can have.

Here is the point: the most effective witness might be to believe the gospel enough to ask for forgiveness. If you blow it then perhaps the best way you can proclaim Jesus is by modeling repentance and believing in the power of Jesus enough to be authentic. So, if you blow your witness (and you will) then show Jesus by being humble enough to admit that you are wrong, don’t stop modeling the gospel.