How to Listen to a Sermon: A View From the Pulpit and the Pew

Last Sunday, my family and I attended services at three different churches. During both the morning, the afternoon, and the evening, we all sat in three congregations. We worshipped with three different praise teams. We listened to three different preachers. We shared meaningful fellowship before or after church with three different congregations of Christians. We have been at a lot of churches lately; either serving for a season, or coming because of an invitation to preach, or building new community and new relationships. Since my family and I are currently working on planting a church, but haven't yet launched, I am in the position of spending some Sundays preaching at other churches. On other Sundays, I find myself sitting with my family under the preaching of others. So naturally I've had some time to think a bit about how to preach and how to listen, since I am spending a lot of time these days doing both.

One thought that has come up is that as a listener, I can gain a lot more if I know how to engage with different styles of preaching. And as a preacher, I can probably help my listeners out a lot more if I tell people how to get the most out of my message.

GENERAL RULE FOR LISTENERS: WORK WITH THE PREACHER YOU HAVE

I have heard complaints about certain preachers as a congregant over the last 20 years. But truthfully, I really haven't actually heard that many truly, completely terrible sermons. Most have some redeeming value. Delivery and opportunity for preparation may vary, but any given preacher has likely spent over a dozen hours -specifically that week, and then many more hours over the course of an entire lifetime of solitary study- thinking through the topic or text that he is speaking on. It is probably likely that there is at least something valuable in what he has to say. So here are some friendly ground rules, from someone who occupies a space in both the pulpit and the pew:  1  Appreciate the preacher that you have,  2  come on Sunday morning with an expectant willingness to learn,  3  be a friendly audience, and  4  get a sense for how your pastor preaches (and work with it); not only will you get a lot more out of Sunday mornings if you do, but you can also help visiting friends or guests get the most out of their Sunday morning at your church, too.

RULES (FOR MYSELF) AS A PREACHER: TELL PEOPLE HOW TO PARTICIPATE

Based on my experiences as a listener, I think that when I preach I could help people out a lot more by telling them how they can participate.

 1  As a preacher, I can tell people where to focus--which means that as listeners, we can be aware of the options for what to focus on and look for clues about how to listen. As a listener I tend to follow one of four things, and it's helpful for me to know ahead of time what I should be tracking: the text, the argument, the preacher, or the slides/notes. We all have opinions on what the focus should be, but putting that aside for the moment, it's helpful to know what the focus is. Some sermons assume that you've got the text open in front of you and the preacher is doing running commentary and application. I just did this a few weeks ago by preaching through the whole book of Exodus, and I could have helped people out a lot more by telling them to keep their Bibles open to each section as I verbally walked through it. Sometimes, particularly with a more topical message, the argument is the main focus. The text might introduce the topic, but the sermon branches out from there. Having a notebook handy to track the argument is pretty crucial here, as the argument might engage with many texts, quotes, possible objections, and applications, and these are all helpful ways of teasing out the claims or implications of the main text while not exactly arising from within the text itself. Another possibility is that the preacher wants your undivided attention. Some pastors will tell you not to have books open and not to be busy writing notes during their sermon. That's an indication that they want to talk directly to you. They want to get to your heart, and they're going to look you in the eye, and tell you a lot of stories to help you apply what they're saying. They want to see in your eyes whether they've either succeeded or failed to make the message reach you directly. Finally, some preachers have notes or slides that they have put a lot of hard work into, and those slides carry the majority of the message. If you want to get the most out of their message, take pictures of their slides with your phone or capture their information in your notebook. As a preacher, I tend not to have super-detailed slides, but when I do I would probably say that if you have to make a choice of what to write down, the slides probably have the most important information.

 2  As a preacher, I can tell people how to engage with changes to the usual way of doing things--which means that as listeners, we can be aware of how to handle some of the the variety that we sometimes ask for. When I have the chance, I like to change up how I preach (though sometimes this is limited by whoever has say over the stage design). I like to mark up the text on the screen behind me using my tablet, or work in some drama or stage props, or get out a big white/black board and build a big picture of words and images that by the end finally captures the whole message in one big visual. I like to do Q&A and run a mic to people, or have text-messaged comments or questions show up on a screen beside me. I like to incorporate videos or songs into the middle of my messages. I have done all of these things. But as a preacher who has been spending more time lately as a listener, I have learned that I need to let people know what's coming up and how they can process it. I could probably help people with interactive elements by letting people know how they can get ready. If I do Q&A at the end of a sermon, I am wanting people to engage by thinking through my sermon as I am preaching it and then coming up with one big question, which I then hope to answer. If I am doing Q&A between points, then I am probably using that time as a "release valve" to help people track with with a dense message. For drama, I want people to put down the notebooks and pens and enter into the story for a second; just write "hold on, the pastor is getting into a lion pit" and then come back to your notes after I get out. If I am marking up a passage on my tablet, I'd like you to have your Bible open so that you can track the same connections that I am making (even if you don't physically mark up your Bible). But it helps if I actually communicate these things. 

 3  As a preacher, I can tell people what kind of preacher I am--which means that as listeners, we can learn to understand and work with the strengths and weaknesses of our preacher's default style. I find that a lot of preachers are going to have a preacher default mode that we can work with. Some are "buffet" preachers who give you a mountain of all different kinds of content, and expect that each person will take a few helpings of whatever God specially impresses upon their heart. You will feel less overwhelmed if you realize that this kind of preacher has prepared a little bit of something for everybody, rather than expecting that somebody is going to digest everything. You're going to get languages, historical theology, literary structure, philosophy, apologetics, counseling, stories, diagrams, outlines, and various different interpretations of the text, all in one place and time. Grab a few scoops of whatever you need. You'll always find something, every Sunday. By contrast, some pastors are "big meal with leftovers" preachers. This is me. I'm not serving up all different kinds of meals that you can choose some scoops of this or that out of to create your own custom plate, but I am serving up one single big meal with enough for extra helpings. I have one main theme, and a simple outline that's usually projected on the screen behind me, which I hope everybody gets and understands. But packed into that, I include enough within each point of my outline that anyone who wants to, they can get a little bit more out of it if they want to. Some are "curated experience" preachers, and they have everything plated out and presented for you. Everyone gets the same meal, with the same portions, prepared with style by a master chef who wants to take your eyes and tastebuds on a journey. This preacher will tell you what your one takeaway should be from the message. You will know exactly what the points of the sermon are. You will be given exactly the same sermon summary sentence as everyone else. This kind of preaching can still leave you feeling hungry even if you like what you've had, but it does provide a sort of guided helpfulness that the other two kinds of meals don't give you. If you understand your preacher, or if I as a preacher can help my people understand who I am as a preacher, you will be able to get a lot more out of the sermon.

ASK THE PREACHER FOR HELP AS A LISTENER

Finally, as a fellow listener who also preaches, I'd like to encourage you to ask your preacher for help. Ask for his manuscript or outline, or email him a follow-up question to the sermon, or let him know you had trouble following along (maybe you couldn't sleep the night before) and ask him to break the main point of the sermon down for you. Maybe even ask him for tips how to listen to a sermon, because he might have all kinds of good ideas I didn't think of to write here. Work with the preacher whose teaching you sit under, and don't assume that you have nothing to gain from him. Coming to your preacher with the heart of a learner may just reveal him to be the competent, godly teacher that you thought that you were still waiting for.

Cheers,

-Pastor Sean

BOOK REVIEW: "How Do You Read It?" by Benno Kurvits

I first became aware of Benno Kurvits’ 2025 book How Do You Read It?: Twenty Principles for Interpreting the Bible Well last year. The author of the book had just started attending Heritage Fellowship Baptist, the church I was pastoring, following a joining of our two churches along with a third Spanish-speaking church. Benno had been one of the long-time Elders at Pilgrim Baptist Fellowship before that church joined with ours. As I began to familiarize myself with the people who were coming over from the two churches that we were blending with, I noticed that many of the people -who were very theologically well-informed- from Pilgrim Baptist not only had copies of Benno’s book, but they spoke very well of it. So I made it a priority to get a copy of the book and look through it myself.

Just to say up front, I am very impressed by what Benno has produced. How Do You Read It? does a fantastic job of distilling out twenty principles for Bible interpretation under six categories. That framework of twenty principles and six categories alone already makes it easier to communicate and pass on teaching about how to read and understand the Bible to laypeople. But it is also remarkably polished for a self-published work. The main text is just 333 pages with a comfortable font size and the writing style is very accessible. In addition to the main text there are another five appendices on various subjects, a bibliography, and (I think this is a nice touch) a full Scripture index which can’t have been easy to produce but which will come in handy for those who use this book repeatedly as a reference tool.

GEARED MAINLY TOWARDS THE LAYPERSON

The content of the book is mainly geared towards laypeople. “I am not writing primarily for the Christian academic, the seminary professor, or the pastor,” Benno says, “Rather, I aim to help the Christian in the pew” (p. 7). His concern in writing the book is mostly pastoral: “Why should one interpret the Bible well? One answer is: because a lot of pain and loss can be avoided through good interpretation” (p. 6). Later on in the book, Benno goes on to give some more examples of the pain that can be caused in people’s lives when the Bible is misinterpreted, including the experience of those who have lived through divisions between well-meaning Christians (p. 7), the pain felt by people who have fallen into cult movements (p. 269), or those struggling to overcome the marks of having been raised in “oppressive [religious] homes where the abuses of power were realities” (p. 271). I appreciated this emphasis and I agree with his insight: how we read the Bible has an incredible impact on the trajectory that our lives will take as individuals and communities. It's important to get this right.

Because this book is geared toward laypeople, Benno is up front about saying that he is going to presuppose rather than defend things like the 66-book canon of the Protestant Bible,* the dual divine and human authorship of the Scriptures, and the Bible’s historical reliability (pp. 11-13). You won’t find detailed discussions regarding the canon, textual criticism, or translations in this book. However, Benno does acknowledge these issues, and he recommends good resources for these in footnotes at the appropriate places, for example on p. 62 and pp. 74-75 (the canon), p. 30 (textual criticism and manuscript evidence), and pp. 69-70 (discussion of translations). Interested readers can look up the recommended resources in those footnotes to learn more about those subjects. This is one example of how Benno does a very good job of keeping the scope of the book focused.

THE CONTENT OF THE BOOK

The first of the categories that Benno lists for Bible interpretation is Faith Fundamentals, under which he lists principles 1-3 of coming to the Bible with a posture of faith, of relying upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and of acknowledging the centrality of Christ to the message of the entire Bible. I don’t often see these principles listed in the more mechanical guides for reading the Bible that I have seen elsewhere, so I appreciated that Benno starts with these. It also helps to give the book a more devotional feel. These postures unlock, rather than blind us to, the treasures of Scripture.

The second of Benno’s categories is Literary Skills, under which he lists principles 4-7 on the importance of context, of careful examination of words and grammar, of reading according to genre, and of noticing literary structures. Throughout these chapters the author includes plenty of illustrations and examples that help to keep the writing engaging. Where these chapters could have felt overwhelming, the takeaway was that the material was handled in a practical and relatable way.

The third category given is Background Basics, which lists principles 8-10 of looking into historical context, relevant geography, and cultural background which might be relevant for understanding the text. Benno uses plenty of examples throughout, and at least once touches on other religions like Mormonism where this kind of background work would be made impossible by their own holy book’s inability to find any confirmation of the events they describe in outside historical sources. That is in marked contrast to the Bible which comments on what God has done in human history, and of which the reader can gain increased understanding by learning a little about the times, places, and cultures in which it was first written.

Fourth, under the category of Internal Dynamics, Benno lists principles 11-15 on being aware of how Scripture interprets Scripture, of progressive revelation, of distinctions between the various covenants of the Bible, and of the priority placed upon the New Covenant for followers of Jesus, as well as of how the revealing of Jesus Christ in the New Testament helps us to see more clearly “pictures” of Christ in the Old Testament. The subject of New Covenant theology or Progressive Covenantalism is clearly a passion for Benno, so the chapter on the covenants contains a decent amount of detail, and he also has another appendix devoted to it at the end of the book.

Fifth, under External Influences, Benno lists principles 16-18 on the helpfulness of tradition, of the importance of interpreting within a community including family and friends and experts, and of being aware of “the spirit of the age” that we live in so that we can resist its influence on us to make us try to reinterpret the Bible in novel ways to line up with modern tastes. Even where external influences are favorable, Benno also does a good job here of showing where they can become dangers, and he does address issues like Jewish and Roman Catholic traditions being used to override the meaning of the text in those faith traditions. He also shares a personal story about how even a trusted, well-meaning teacher can still lead people into error unintentionally. This helps to give the reader an understanding of why external influences are valuable while still cautioning the reader not to let these external influences carry an outsized amount of weight on them as they read the Bible.

Finally, Benno’s sixth category of principles is Personal Attitudes, which lists principles 19-20 on hard work, and the “magnificent seven” attitudes of humility, reverence, dependence, carefulness, openness, purity, and thankfulness, as things that the reader can cultivate within themselves as they approach the text of Scripture. These final chapters underscore the devotional bent of the book—this isn’t a mechanical “how to” book, although it does teach “how to” read the Bible, but How Do You Read It? comes time and time again back to the formation of the reader as a Christian who is approaching God through their engagement with the Scriptures.

THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK

I fully recommend this book. As someone who reads a lot of books, somewhere between 40-70 books per year, and whose bookshelf needs to be constantly pared down just to keep it manageable—this book is going to keep its place on my bookshelf. I’m going to use, and recommend, this book often.

If Benno were to publish a second edition, I only have minor suggestions to make, though the book is already good without incorporating them. I think the section on Principle #2, regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit, could be expanded a little as it's a bit short. I also think that Principle #7, on literary structures, could give some more attention to how whole books of the Bible are structured, rather than focusing mainly on the small structures contained within the different books such as chiasms and parallels, etc. The messages of some whole books of the Bible like Leviticus, Psalms, Daniel, and Matthew really come into focus when their entire structure is understood, just to name four examples. Principle #3 on the centrality of Christ could also have used a little more of a taxonomy of ways that we can see Jesus in the Old Testament, although that is partly helped by the chapter on Principle #15, which gives more detail regarding typology. However, it’s difficult to know what to exclude in future editions if all of this other suggested material were to be included, in order to maintain the accessible length of the book—maybe cutting down some of the longer footnotes. In the end, this book is already fine the way it is, and its writing is a significant achievement for the author.

I also wish this were available in some more accessible forms, such as e-book and audio book formats. This makes it easier to consult for people who are on the go, and that is primarily the group that this book is written for. As it stands the book is currently only available in paperback format.

In the end, I am very happy with this book. It is what Benno intended, which is a gift to followers of Jesus that helps them to be formed by the Bible and to approach it with confidence and joy. Well done!

You can find the book available for purchase at this link: https://www.amazon.ca/How-You-Read-Principles-Interpreting/dp/1069444707/

Cheers,

-Sean

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

*The 66-book canon of the Protestant Bible. Although labelled “Protestant,” it is also the canon of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the largest body within Eastern Orthodoxy (according to Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky). St. Philaret of Moscow also gives this canon in his The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church on the basis of New Testament and early Patristic evidence. Metropolitan Kalistos Ware also states in his book The Orthodox Church that "most Orthodox scholars at the present day... following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deuterocanonical books... stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament" (p. 194). The Protestant Old Testament canon is also the same as the Jewish Tanakh of Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism.

The First Question of Christian Apologetics: "Is It True?"

NOTE: This is the second part of a series on the three big questions of Christian apologetics: (1) Is Christianity true? (2) Is Christianity good? and (3) Is Christianity meaningful? You can find the introduction to this series here.

---------------------------------------

I think that contact, single-conversation evangelism is where we often see the supernatural happen. God can move in a heart and take a person all the way from resistance to rescue in the space of one conversation. When that happens, it's a sight to behold! I pray for those moments regularly. However, I don't think that people regularly move from skepticism to faith in one conversation. Trying to make that happen could be one reason why so much Christian evangelism is ineffective. Many people have complicated, tangled webs of resistance and doubt and alternate ways of seeing things, and for that reason, often the best way to use evidence of the Christian faith is to simply help people move a little closer to Christianity than they were before. What follows is my attempt to create a road map to which evidences might help someone most where they are at. I hope this helps you as you either carry out your own personal journey or work to help someone else get closer to Jesus.

STEP ONE: FROM ATHEIST TO DEIST

If you are speaking to someone who is an atheist, your first goal is probably not going to be to convince them that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God and that he has died for our sins and will return bodily to judge the living and the dead. The reason for this is that before we can talk about how someone can know that Jesus is God, that person has to be willing to entertain the idea that God exists. An atheist might know that Christians believe in Jesus, and the truth of the Bible, and lots of other things, but they are hung up on the question of how we can know that there is a God in the first place. With that goal in mind, I think I could open an ATHEIST up to the idea that if the history of the universe goes backward eternally (I usually do this by asking, "what do you think came before the Big Bang?") then there might be something that always existed. And if this thing moves on its own without being moved by something before it, then it has a will of its own. And if it brought the whole universe into being, then it's all-powerful or so close as to make no difference--and pretty soon we are talking about God. Arguments for intelligent design or the fine-tuning of the universe point out that if the universe operates by mathematical principles then that suggests a high level of order and engineering which suggests a Designer. These arguments serve to ask a person who says there is no God whether they're being totally reasonable in discounting God. Once someone acknowledges the existence of God, it's entirely reasonable to explore whether God would want something to do with us, and that question takes us to the next step.

STEP TWO: FROM DEIST TO THEIST

If someone does allow for God to exist, but they are a DEIST who says God is not personally involved in our lives, I think I could continue to try to open them up from there. (Or if you're reading this and that's you, I'd like to suggest a couple of things to think about.) For example, the existence of morality and consciousness shows that we all have a divinely-impressed law on our hearts that goes way beyond self-preservation, or the betterment of our own group. Although some have tried to argue to the contrary, I don't think that self-sacrificial morality is an evolutionary feature because it doesn't lead to us improving our chances of passing on our genes. It often leads us to make choices for the good of others that prevent us from passing on genes, especially when the person whose good we are concerned with is outside of our own community. This powerful moral consciousness is something that suggests that God not only exists, but that he is personally concerned with our lives and has given us a moral code to help us live our lives in accordance with his will. And I don't think that applies just to this life. Arguments for the existence of the soul such as the study of Near Death Experiences, which have been included in some prestigious medical journals, and which even non-religious researchers describe as "evidence of something... more", could also demonstrate that not only has God made us, but that he has made us with the ability to enjoy relationship with him beyond death. Accounts of miracles and attempts to scientifically measure their veracity have also gained interest, in ways that still invite outlets like The New York Times to wonder. Evidence for the existence of miracles, if it bears the weight of investigation, obviously opens us up to the possibility that not only does God exist, but he is actively interested and involved in the lives of human beings. Once someone acknowledges that God exists and that it seems like he wants to have a relationship with us, then it's reasonable to push a little further and look at whether there's any evidence that he's revealed himself to humans before.

STEP THREE: FROM THEIST TO ABRAHAMIC

Of course, there are plenty of people who are theists who believe in the existence of a real, personal God who is interested in their lives. They just don't happen to be convinced of the truth of the Bible. Maybe they have heard that it has been discounted, or that there are too many problems or contradictions in it for it to be true. But maybe a THEIST (a person who believes in a God who is personally involved in our lives, but is not necessarily a Christian) would be surprised and interested to hear that there is quite a bit of corroborating evidence for the Bible in the field of archaeology. They might also be surprised, and interested, to hear that there are many good reasons for acknowledging the antiquity of the documents that make up the Bible relative to the events that they describe, both from the New Testament and from the Old Testament. The findings of source criticism can also help to show that as old as these documents are, they can clearly be shown to build on still-earlier sources that are even closer to (or contemporaneous with) the events recorded. There are other arguments for the Bible's trustworthiness too, among which we can include historical fulfillment of prophecy (for example, Daniel's prediction of the rise of successive empires, once the antiquity of Daniel's writing is established) and the self-authentication of Scripture where it is shown to be well ahead of the times in which it was written, in various aspects. If the Bible can be shown to be a uniquely trustworthy source of revelation from God, then it's worthwhile to explore what it has to say about Jesus.

STEP FOUR: FROM ABRAHAMIC TO CHRISTIAN

Someone who is a member of one of the Abrahamic faiths believes that God has truthfully revealed himself through Scripture (at least through the Old Testament, but also often the New Testament). Christianity is commonly considered part of this grouping, but in this case I'm using the term to distinguish the other groups under this umbrella from Christianity. This ABRAHAMIC group includes Jewish and Muslim people, but also includes those who are Rastafarian, Baha'i, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on. Often a central claim made by these groups is that mainstream Christianity arises from some mistaken divergence from either the Old Testament or from Jesus' true original message. To someone of this belief, I might first appeal to arguments for the antiquity and reliability of the documents that we have, to show that Scripture has not been added to or tampered with, and that we indeed have what was originally written. Then, I would appeal to Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. Much of my preaching as a pastor actually focuses on showing how the Old Testament consistently points to Jesus in unmistakable ways. In particular, the work of Christian Old Testament scholars like Michael Rydelnik and Ian Vaillancourt go a long way towards showing that Jesus is the true point of the Old Testament Scriptures. Once I showed Jesus from the Old Testament, I would also borrow from historical Jesus research to show that the Gospels can be used as good sources about the life of Jesus, even by those who don't fully trust in their inerrancy or inspiration. There is a great deal of biblical and non-biblical information about the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the work of scholars is very helpful here. The results of this research also tend to cut against attempts to radically re-cast Jesus' identity by fringe groups (i.e. that he preached Islam, or that he is really the Apostle Paul, or that he married Mary Magdalene and escaped to France, all of which are actual claims that people have made). Another helpful tool for demonstrating the reliability of the Gospels as containing eyewitness testimony about Jesus is the argument from undesigned coincidences. This argument recognizes that in many places throughout the Gospels, there is evidence of independent accounts of shared events which happen to overlap in detail in seemingly unintentional ways, fitting together like puzzle pieces. This matches up with how the incidental details of two people's story of their trip to a restaurant might lock together with many incidental details overlapping or explaining one another. I would also reference the various historical arguments for the resurrection. If the historical Jesus research demonstrates his existence, and the Gospels faithfully preserve the claims and the actions of Jesus, then the evidence for the resurrection acts as a divine stamp of authenticity on all that Jesus ever did and all that he ever claimed about himself. And finally, I would appeal to the argument from the early church witnesses. Some of the earliest church fathers outside of the New Testament, like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, are so early that they seem to have known the apostles personally. They can confirm what was widely held to be true about Jesus by the apostles and by the church in the very first century, long before the time of Constantine when many argue that Christianity was co-opted or altered from its original form. If Jesus lived like the Gospels say he did, and he claimed what they say he claimed, and he was resurrected from death to prove those claims, and the whole early church believed in him beginning at the time soon after his crucifixion, then it makes it incredibly likely that the Christian message about Jesus is how God has revealed himself to us.

WHAT'S NEXT?

So far, that's been quite a journey! At each stage, depending where people are at, this post provides a sort of map that details at which point one of the evidences for Christianity might prove most helpful for people who are seeking to know more about Jesus. But what about all of the other religious options that are out there? And how can we know anything at all? That's for the next post.

Cheers,

-Pastor Sean

More Than Facts: Is Christianity True, Good, and Meaningful?

NOTE: This is the introduction to a series on the three big questions of Christian apologetics: (1) Is Christianity true? (2) Is Christianity good? and (3) Is Christianity meaningful?

---------------------------------------

How do you make a good argument for Christianity? I am wired for apologetics. I love digging into the meat of a matter, sorting out fact from fiction, and discovering the place where two competing points of view, using the same set of facts, diverge from each other--and then determining which philosophical fork in the road is the most reasonable path to take given the fact-finding journey that led up to it. However, as a former championship-level debater, I also know that there is a limit to what arguments and fact-sorting can accomplish. The line of someone's argumentation can get lost, and sometimes the most convincing person can simply be whoever was the last to speak because theirs is the most recent impression made. As an apologetically-minded pastor who has seen some pretty discerning thinkers come to faith in my own ministry, I think that contrasting worldviews and showing the reasonableness of the Christian faith is incredibly important.  But I think that when we talk about the Christian faith, we should start with how most people make their decisions -based on impressions- and work from there to make the case that Christianity is not only true, but also good and meaningful.

ESTABLISHING CREDIBILITY: IS CHRISTIANITY TRUE?

For the most part, it's true that most people won't be argued into the Kingdom of Heaven. Some especially discerning or logic-oriented people might; after all, that's the story of some famous apologists like Lee Strobel, whose own faith journey began with an exploration of the evidence for the resurrection. But facts and arguments still have a role to play in establishing credibility. My goal in arguing for the truth of Christianity isn't necessarily to convince someone that Christianity is true; it's to show that a reasonable person could believe that Christianity is true. It's to demonstrate credibility. This shows that Christianity is at least worth consideration.

I won't lay out a case for the trustworthiness of Christianity here. That will come next week (I'll come back and link to it here once it is written). But people are not going to give the Christian faith a second thought if they don't even see how it could be true. There are a lot of hard-hearted skeptics out there, but my experience is that most people are open to seeing things a different way if they don't feel that they're being pushed into an immediate response. For those people, I often find that they are interested and surprised to hear that there is archaeological evidence for events depicted in the Bible. I've also never had a bad response to asking someone what they think came before the Big Bang, and before that, etc. which opens up all kinds of discussion about whether there is a God and what he must be like. The more confident that someone is about some statement of their disbelief, the more constructive I find it is to "put a rock in their shoe" by throwing in something that might disturb their confident unbelief: for example, when someone confidently states that Jesus never existed, I like to mention Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist? as an example of a non-Christian scholar who confidently writes about Jesus' existence and all the ways the Gospels can be good sources about his life (even though Ehrman doesn't believe in the truths of Christianity or the inspiration of the Bible). My goal here isn't to push them into Christianity--it's to make them question their own unbelief.

ESTABLISHING BENEFIT TO HUMANITY: IS CHRISTIANITY GOOD?

It's not enough to show someone that Christianity is credible, though. This is where I think that a lot of apologetics falls short. Most Christian apologetics seeks to show that Christianity is true, but not that it is good. We live in a world where people come from having grown up or been exposed to really bad church experiences. People are aware of historical atrocities committed in Christ's name. Recent revelations in Canada regarding First Nations Residential Schools have left a bad taste in many people's mouths. The perceived anti-scientific views of many Christians, or anti-progress attitudes, may convince many that they don't want Christianity to be true because it is not good and its continuing role in society is holding everyone else back. This is where a modern apologetic for Christianity's societal goodness needs a bigger role. Even if you are not a Christian, we might say, you should want Christianity to have a role in the public sphere. A lot of interesting work has been done here in recent years. For example the historian Tom Holland has shown that Christianity has created the basis for modern concepts of justice, equality, and fairness in his book on the subject. The role of Christianity in establishing the foundation for modern healthcare, education, charities, orphanages, and care for the impoverished has been described by normally anti-Christian thinkers as a Christian innovation. Even in the case of missionaries, often seen as a colonialist enterprise, some of the best research available demonstrates the incredible social and physical benefits that have come to the countries that have received the most Christian missionaries. The role of churches in North America has also been shown to have a sort of "halo effect" in providing goods and services for North American communities more effectively and at lower cost than what can be provided by publicly-funded care. Where harm has been done in Christ's name, it can be reliably shown that those actions were not in line with the teachings of Christ. However, the basis for calling out that harm as evil is itself Christian: As Tom Holland writes in his book Dominion, “[It is true that] Many [Christians], over the course of time, have themselves become agents of terror. They have put the weak in their shadow; they have brought suffering, and persecution, and slavery in their wake. Yet the standards by which they stand condemned for this are themselves Christian.” We need to make a bigger case that Christianity has something meaningful, or even foundational, to bring into the public sphere. We should leave people saying, not only that Christianity is credible, but that even non-Christians would want for there to be more Christians and more Christianity in the world for all the good that it does.

ESTABLISHING DESIRABILITY: IS CHRISTIANITY MEANINGFUL?

All of this won't be enough to make people want to become Christians themselves, though. There are a lot of people who find themselves persuaded of the truth of Christianity, but they view it as something like the general principles of accounting: true perhaps, and good in terms of keeping everything in order, but not something that they want to be personally involved with unless they have to. One more famous, recent example of this is Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams who is battling cancer. He recently announced that he will convert to Christianity: "I still have time. My understanding is you're never too late." Many people approach Christianity this way. Believing that it is true or reasonable, and that it is good for people to believe it, they still find themselves personally pushing the decision to convert off until they are certain they are near death, because they're convinced that Christianity isn't very fulfilling or meaningful. This is something we can spend a little more time on making a case for. For example, Christianity gives us an incredible foundation for our relationship with ourselves. The exemplary life of Jesus gives us some standard for what "normal" human behavior looks like, cutting against both the idea that health looks like unemotional, detached stoicism, or that it looks like a constant boundary-less response to the demands of the moment. Christian teachings on sex and its purpose are an incredibly freeing answer to both sexual repression and our modern cultural hypersexuality. Assumptions that reflect Christian teachings have been adopted by organizations that have achieved significantly higher-than-normal improvements in finding freedom from alcohol and drug addiction. And these are only the beginnings of the personal benefits of a life that is firmly rooted in our identity in Jesus.

Christianity also gives us an incredible foundation for our relationships with others. The teachings of Christianity both support the family structure, while establishing a clear boundary where one may "leave their mother and father, and cleave to [their spouse]" (Gen. 2:24). This is an important guideline which helps both with the harmony of existing families and the successful creation of new ones. Christian teachings about marriage support the respectful treatment of a husband by his wife, but it is also unique (especially for its time) in insisting on a standard of treatment and care that a husband owes to his wife. And the church, far from being a burden to those considering the truths of Christianity, has been shown to be a gift (even with the messiness that is involved any time that human beings gather together). The Harvard School of Public Health has even studied, and listed the many personal benefits, of those who regularly attend church services. In our relationship with the wider world around us. Christianity gives us a unique respect for the world as a gift of God which leads to a belief that it should be cared for and conservated. Politically, many of the beliefs of Christianity cut across or "diagonalize" across positions that are often held to be either Left or Right. But most importantly, Christianity gives us a foundation for a daily, ongoing and meaningful relationship with God. When the news cycle shows us the latest war or invasion or protest or pandemic, it is incredibly reassuring to know that we can rely on God who has a plan to take the evil that human beings commit or create, and that he will use it ultimately for good. When we feel stuck in the constant churn of waking up, going to work, dealing with bills, taking care of laundry and cooking and unending responsibilities, falling asleep, and repeating the same thing over again--worship draws us up into an experience of being part of something more enduring and wonderful and meaningful. And prayer is an incredibly helpful part of all of this: God absolutely does answer prayer. Prayer is not a magical ritual whereby we can move the hand of God to do our will and not his own, but in praying we are often transformed or given greater awareness or assurance, and besides all that, significant evidence does exist to support the effectiveness of prayer (though I'll write more about this in a couple of weeks). There are all kinds of reasons why we would not want to put that off until the moment of death. The reality is, Christianity gives a foundation for a much better life here and now than anything else.

So, this serves as an introduction to the next few weeks of writing where I'll dive into more detail on each of these topics. While I don't think that arguments can bring most people into a personal, saving belief in Jesus, I think that they do play an important role. But the argument needs to do more than just establish credibility: it needs to help someone understand why they would want other people to be Christians; and why they personally would want to receive that hope for themselves.

Cheers,

-Pastor Sean

The Story of a Name: "YHWH" or "LORD" in Christian Worship?

 

*NOTE: This post was originally written in Fall of 2024. It is a "first pass" at the topic from my viewpoint as a teaching pastor, and is open to revision in the future as time (and interest) allows.

---------------------------------------

There seems to be a trend lately to try and reclaim the Old Testament’s covenant name for God in Christian worship. Vineyard worship triumphantly declares “He is Yahweh” in their 2008 song of the same name. More recently, Elevation worship’s 2016 release Yahweh also includes the lyrics: “Holy, holy is the Lord; Worthy to be praised—Yahweh.” This is even reflected in many recent Bible translations, as the Lexham English Bible, World English Bible, and Legacy Standard Bible all use the rendering “Yahweh” instead of the more traditional rendering “the LORD.” In the last case, the official website for the Legacy Standard Bible -a revision of the NASB- claims that “Exodus 3:14-15 shows that God Himself considered it important for His people to know His name. The effect of revealing God’s name is His distinction from other gods and His expression of intimacy with the nation of Israel.” This justification for their translation choice gives the impression that other translations are obscuring or doing an injustice by hiding away the covenant name of God, which that translation is then claiming to correct.

Is it really the case, though, that rendering God’s covenant name as “LORD” is just a bit of traditionalism that obscures God’s name and that needs to be done away with? Could it be that there are good reasons to prefer the traditional rendering instead? The best way to explore the answer might be to look at the story of the name of God, and what that story tells us about how we can approach him.

EARLY DAYS: THE FREQUENT USE OF GOD’S NAME

From its first use in Genesis 2:4, to its definitive use in Exodus 3:14-15, down throughout the rest of the Old Testament, we see a regular use of God’s covenant name all the way from the Exodus to the Persian period of Israel's history (Nehemiah 10:35). Other contemporary sources outside of the Old Testament, such as the Lachish Ostraca (approx. 587 BC), the Al-Yahudu Tablets (approx. 587-477 BC), and the Elephantine Papyri (approx. 419-402 BC) all demonstrate a fairly free approach to the use of God’s name. It appears that God’s name was frequently used, without embarrassment, both by biblical writers and by other Judeans outside of the Bible up into the Persian period.

INTERTESTAMENTAL TIMES: THE UNPRONOUNCEABLE NAME

At some point between the Persian period and the time of Christ, however, the pronunciation of God’s name seems to have fallen out of regular use. The Jewish Encyclopedia, using the term “Tetragrammaton” for the four-letter spelling of God’s name in Hebrew (יהוה or YHWH), claims that “it may well be that such a reluctance [to pronounce God’s name] first arose in a foreign, and hence in an ‘unclean’ land, very possibly, therefore, in Babylonia… the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval… the Divine Name was not pronounced lest it should be desecrated by the heathen.” There actually was some abuse of the divine name, which we know, historically, extended even to its use in magic spells and rituals (where it is often rendered as ιαω or Iao - another possible vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, though the form ιαωουηε or Iaoouee also exists, which may be pronounced more like the familiar rendering Yahweh).

By the time of Jesus, we see the increasing use of the word “Lord” in place of God’s name in Biblical manuscripts in Greek. Greg Lanier writes, “Perhaps surprisingly, some Jewish manuscripts found at Qumran dating from before the birth of Jesus translated YHWH using the Greek term kyrios [Lord]... the Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) also used kyrios for YHWH, even though he died likely before the bulk of the NT was written.” It should be pointed out that our oldest physical copies of Greek Old Testament manuscripts do have God’s name written as יהוה written in Hebrew letters, but University of Toronto professor Albert Pietersma -who is also one of the editors of the New English Translation of the Septuagint- has convincingly shown that these manuscripts are Hebraizing corrections of still-earlier Greek manuscripts, and not the original form of the Old Testament in Greek. Thus, the original Greek copies of the Old Testament likely translated God’s name with the Greek word for “Lord,” as did later Greek manuscripts. Even in the case of Greek manuscripts that use Hebrew letters for the name of God, it should be pointed out that this is still an effort to avoid the actual pronunciation of God’s name—it isn’t an equivalent transliteration of God’s name using Greek consonants and vowels, which would have rendered the name pronounceable, but instead it obscures God’s name by continuing to represent it in Hebrew or even Paleo-Hebrew letters.

Later translations of the Old Testament into Greek also inserted יהוה in original Hebrew letters, but this practice was eventually dropped because of an unfortunate mispronunciation of God’s name that resulted. Jerome writes in his 25th letter to Marcella, written at Rome in 384 AD, that “The ninth [name of God] is a tetragrammaton, which they [the Jews] considered anekphoneton, that is, unspeakable, which is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Which certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters [to the Greek letters PIPI], when they would find them in Greek books, were accustomed to pronounce ‘Pipi.’”

It seems, then, that providentially, leading up to the time of Jesus, and then in the centuries that followed, the use of God’s covenant name fell out of use. This came to the point that the name’s true pronunciation was eventually lost, and is still today a matter of debate. But it is worthwhile to ask: why would God allow his name to fall into disuse?

THE TIME OF CHRIST: THE NEW NAME OF GOD

The New Testament repeatedly shows, in its quotations from the Old Testament, that the earliest Christians knew and accepted a Greek translation which substituted “Lord” for יהוה. And Jesus, arriving at a time in history when God’s name was beginning to fall into disuse, did nothing to correct that trend. Instead he taught his disciples to pray “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name” in Matthew 6:9. Jesus also says in a prayer to God the Father, “Holy Father, keep them [the disciples] in your name… While I was with them, I kept them in your name… I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known” (John 17:26). This is interesting, because nowhere do we actually see Jesus use the Old Testament covenant name for God. All of the New Testament manuscripts that we have, many of which are quite early, uniformly show the same thing. So how exactly did Jesus make the name of God known? The answer seems to be that in the person of Jesus, the identity of God is more fully revealed: יהיה represented God’s irreducible identity as simply “the one who is.” But the name Father represents the first member of the Trinity in relation to God the Son, and his relationship to us through Jesus. And Lord becomes a shared title of God in the Old Testament, and of Jesus in the New Testament (Matthew 7:22, 23:39). This disuse of God’s covenant name both in the New Testament and historically outside of it, combined with Jesus’ revelation of himself as the one through whom a relationship with God is possible, makes it possible for the Apostle Peter to make a fascinating declaration in Acts 4:11-12. He says in front of the high-priestly family of that time, “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

OUR TIME: IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY

So, in our worship and Bible readings, should we use the names Yahweh or Jehovah? Or, possibly, Iao, though I haven’t seen that one pop up in any translations or worship songs? Should we do what some before and after Jesus did, and bring the covenant name of God back, but using Hebrew letters? If we did, it might cause an unfortunate mispronunciation of God’s name by English-speaking worshippers as was the case in Jerome’s day among Greek-speakers, where some might start to pronounce God’s name יהוה as “Nini.” Or should we stick with the Jewish tradition, which was accepted and used by Jesus, to declare his own identity, of rendering the divine name as “LORD”?

Personally, I don’t see any problem with the use of “Yahweh” in Christian worship, as long as those who use it are aware that may not be the actual pronunciation, and as long as they do not feel that this is evidence of some kind of higher spiritual awareness or knowledge on their part. We do not need more reasons to be divided, and I think that the temptation to use God’s name to mark a division between Christians or sense of superiority over other “less-informed” Christians in their worship songs, preferred translations, and liturgy would amount to a certain kind of dark irony. For me, though, I believe that the providential fall into disuse of God’s name leading up to the time of Jesus, as well as Jesus’ own practice, and his own use of the term “Lord” to refer to himself, as well as the New Testament’s focus on “the name” of Jesus, all amount to a certain happy acceptance of the idea that God is now known by different names -Lord, Father- which are understood most fully through the revelation of Jesus Christ. He is not simply “the one who exists” anymore; but he is the one whose name “Lord” is also used of Jesus, and the one whose identity as Father is revealed to us by the Son.

Grace and Peace,

-Pastor Sean

Week 52 | In the End, We Win

LOOK | WHAT DOES IT SAY?

2 Timothy; 2 Peter; 1-3 John; Jude; Revelation

THINK | WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Hope At the End of Peter and Paul's Lives (2 Peter and 2 Timothy). These two letters clearly reflect Peter and Paul -the central figures of the book of Acts- at what they know to be the ends of their lives. Reliable church tradition as early as the 100's AD suggests that both were executed in Rome under the Emperor Nero, and that setting is reflected in both of these letters as they both appear to write from prison. And yet, there is real hope in both letters. In 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul writes: "The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever." In 2 Peter 1:10-14, Peter writes: "There will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon." When our hope is found where no tyrant on earth could touch it, then our strength and our joy will be firmly founded on something that no one can ever take away.

Hope in the Ministry Challenges of John and Jude (1-3 John and Jude). The Apostle John and the brother of Jesus named Jude both faced significant ministry challenges. In Jude, there is a movement within the church to divert them from the Gospel, and he opposes it in the strongest terms. In 3 John, John has to deal with a man named Diotrephes who has decided that he is a better authority on following Jesus Christ than the apostles themselves. 1 John reflects a number of false teachings that were working their way into the church. Those who work in church ministry and want to see the church shaped by the Gospel never have any shortage of challenges within or without. But there is hope here too. Some of the most amazing passages about Christ's love can be found in, for example 1 John 3-4. Or Jude 1:24-25. How can we be without hope? Through Jesus, we win in the end.

Hope Because in the End, Jesus Wins (Revelation). There are many different understandings of the book of Revelation, which I will mostly not get into here. Other than to say that I think this is truly a book about what will happen in the future, in the same vein as the visions of Daniel 2, 7-12, for which we already have historical fulfillments. With that understanding, there are many things here that are hard to interpret. It looks like there will be difficult days ahead. But also many wonderful opportunities to make Jesus known. And in the end, Revelation 20-22 give us this message: in the end, Jesus wins. He is coming back. All tyrants will be deposed. All sickness will be cured. Every tear will be wiped away. All the proud will be brought low, and all the lowly and humble shall be raised up. When Jesus descends from the clouds to sit on his throne, the saints will rise up to bow down before it. Death will be swallowed up in life, and the nations will rejoice, and every knee will bow down and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. He wins! That's not a prediction: it's a spoiler. We who have trusted in Christ are on the winning team. We know where our home is. And we're just recruiting so that we can bring people there with us, to enjoy it together.

DO | HOW DO WE RESPOND?

How can we respond in our worship, attitude, and actions? I won't lay out exact responses in this space because the possibilities are often endless. But it is worth it to think about application in the categories of worship, attitude, and actions. Does this reading direct me to God in worship and thanksgiving and praise, or does it direct me towards a change that I need to make here and now? If it's about a change that I need to make, is this something inward in my attitude, or outward in my actions? This helps to rescue application from just being a series of how-to tips, or one-size-fits-all instructions that go beyond what the Bible actually states. Sometimes, the most helpful application we can make is to get a different perspective on what's the most important thing, or about how we should respond inwardly to the things going on around us.

PRAY | HOW DOES THIS BRING US TO GOD?

Whether in response to anything pointed out here, or to something else in your Bible reading time, take a few moments before you close up your Bible to pray in response to God. If you need a format for prayer, both the ACTS (Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication), CALL (Confess, Ask, Love, Listen), and PRAY (Praise, Repent, Ask, Yield) methods are helpful ways to stay consistent.

-Sean

Week #51 | A New and Better Hope

LOOK | WHAT DOES IT SAY?

Hebrews; Titus; 1 Timothy; 1 Peter

THINK | WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Jesus Is Greater (Hebrews). Although I find it odd for Steinmann's chronological plan to place the letter to the Hebrews before the end of Paul's life, I am still happy to read through Hebrews any chance I get. The entire theme of the book is that Jesus is Greater. Jesus is greater than the angels (Hebrews 1-2). He is greater than Moses (Hebrews 3) and Joshua (Hebrews 4). He is a greater High Priest (Hebrews 5-7). He brings us a greater covenant (Hebrews 8). He is greater than all of the Temple worship of the Old Covenant (Hebrews 9). He is a greater sacrifice (Hebrews 10). He is the greater, perfect foundation for our ultimate example (Hebrews 11-12). And he is the great unchanging Lord in whom we find our rest, and to whom we direct our sincere worship (Hebrews 13).

Letter to a Church Revitalizer (Titus and 1 Timothy). Paul's letter to Titus was not to a church planter--the congregation at Crete had already been in existence for some time. But the church was in need of revitalization. So Paul sent Titus there to raise up leaders, to equip the church to be a witness to the surrounding community, to instruct the believers there, and to help bring it into cooperation with the wider mission of the surrounding churches. Timothy, though he got a tough time from his congregation for his youth, also received a similar charge in the letter of 1 Timothy. Each of these letters is surprisingly rich and worthy of careful reading, not just by those who are interested in church leadership but by all Christians. These letters together might constitute what we would call God's Blueprint for a Healthy Church. These are the first letters that we go to when we try to understand: what is the church supposed to do? How should it be organized? What is God's intention for us as a community that bears his name?

The Gospel-Driven Life (1 Peter). The thing I love about Peter's first letter is that everything flows out of the truth of the Gospel. No sooner is Peter done marveling at what Jesus has done for us, than he immediately reflects on how this should be reflected in our lives. When he's done reflecting on the practical applications, he moves back to how the applications move us right back to the heart of the Gospel. Then back to transformation. Then to the Gospel. Over and over. What Jesus has done is transformational. And we are transformed because of what Jesus has done. The Gospel does not leave us the same; it invites us into The Gospel-Driven Life.

DO | HOW DO WE RESPOND?

How can we respond in our worship, attitude, and actions? I won't lay out exact responses in this space because the possibilities are often endless. But it is worth it to think about application in the categories of worship, attitude, and actions. Does this reading direct me to God in worship and thanksgiving and praise, or does it direct me towards a change that I need to make here and now? If it's about a change that I need to make, is this something inward in my attitude, or outward in my actions? This helps to rescue application from just being a series of how-to tips, or one-size-fits-all instructions that go beyond what the Bible actually states. Sometimes, the most helpful application we can make is to get a different perspective on what's the most important thing, or about how we should respond inwardly to the things going on around us.

PRAY | HOW DOES THIS BRING US TO GOD?

Whether in response to anything pointed out here, or to something else in your Bible reading time, take a few moments before you close up your Bible to pray in response to God. If you need a format for prayer, both the ACTS (Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication), CALL (Confess, Ask, Love, Listen), and PRAY (Praise, Repent, Ask, Yield) methods are helpful ways to stay consistent.

-Sean

Week #50 | Short Handbooks for the Christian Faith

LOOK | WHAT DOES IT SAY?

Acts 20-28; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; Philemon; James

THINK | WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

God is the Gospel (Acts 20-28). The life of Paul illustrates that the ultimate reward of following God is: we get God. The man who began his life as a persecutor of the church did not get wealth, or power, or fame, or comfort from his new life as a follower of Jesus--but he got Jesus. That was more than enough. And much like the narrative in the Gospels slows down for Jesus' journey to Jerusalem and the final week of his life, the book of Acts slows down for Paul's final journey to Rome. Paul ends his role in the telling of the book of Acts by mirroring the journey of his savior. (However, Paul would actually be released and serve for one more missionary journey as the letters to the Philippians and Philemon anticipate, and 1-2 Timothy and Titus attest, before finally being executed upon returning to Rome.) I don't think Paul would have asked for anything different. God himself is the reward of the Gospel. The Good News is that the Creator of the universe has given us communion with himself.

A Handbook on the Christian Faith (Ephesians 1-6). From his imprisonment in Rome, Paul continued to write letters to encourage the churches that he had founded. Remembering his long stay in Ephesus in Asia, he wrote them a handbook on the implications of the Gospel. He also wrote to the church of the nearby city of Colossae, also in Asia, which he sent out together with his letter to Philemon. Remembering his time in Macedonia, he wrote to Philippi. The letter to the Ephesians is a short and punchy handbook to the Christian faith. It contains a tightly-packed instruction in the Christian faith in chapters 1-3, and then details the practical life applications of that message in chapter 4-6. A short but detailed letter like this would have been, and still is, an incredibly useful discipleship tool for the local Elders to use to educate the new Christians in that area as they accepted the Gospel and began to grow in their understanding of it. It is worth reading through slowly and reflectively, drawing out the riches of the wisdom that God gave to Paul.

A Reason for Joy (Philippians 1-4). The book of Philippians was written to a church that had experienced significant difficulties. So Paul wrote to them from prison as one who could empathize with their struggling, to encourage them to find joy in the Lord. Several times over every chapter of the letter, he tells the Philippian Christians to "rejoice!" (Philippians 1:18; 2:17-18; 2:28; 3:1; 4:4). Paul writes to them -and through Paul's letter to them, God says to us- that is is possible to rejoice in the midst of suffering (Philippians 1), to rejoice in humility (Philippians 2), to rejoice in the mission before us (Philippians 3), and rejoice in the community of faith (Philippians 4).

An Encouragement to Gospel Simplicity (Colossians 1-4 and Philemon). So often, we try to add things to the simple message of the Gospel in order to seem more spiritual than others. The irony is that these things make us less spiritual. Paul wrote to the church at Colossae to counter a sort of anti-body asceticism that had creeped in (Colossians 2:16-23). He points out that the type of false piety that focuses overly on who can deny themselves the most is, in the end, not less focused on material things but more focused on material things. Asceticism takes the message of Christ, sent from heaven, and instead focuses your mind on extensive rules and regulations here on earth. Ultimately the real transformation that we seek comes from drawing near to Christ.

The Kind of Faith That Saves (James). The letter of James sometimes gets unfairly passed over in the church. It contains a message that denies that we are saved by faith alone (James 2:24). And yet, James is talking about the problem of only holding to an intellectual faith--not the heartfelt trust in God which Paul writes about, but instead a merely mental assent to the truth that God exists. We need the message that James presents us with: that kind of faith won't save us. Instead, it is the kind of faith -heartfelt trust- that results in works which saves us (James 2:18-22). Many of us have been given a faith which is more the result of simple slogans, sappy moralism, and loud shouting than any real or honest interaction with the details of the New Testament. So, sadly, very few Christians today have honestly spent any time wrestling with the letter of James. But we should. Because this letter is vital for showing us the kind of faith that really, truly draws us into relationship with Jesus Christ.

DO | HOW DO WE RESPOND?

How can we respond in our worship, attitude, and actions? I won't lay out exact responses in this space because the possibilities are often endless. But it is worth it to think about application in the categories of worship, attitude, and actions. Does this reading direct me to God in worship and thanksgiving and praise, or does it direct me towards a change that I need to make here and now? If it's about a change that I need to make, is this something inward in my attitude, or outward in my actions? This helps to rescue application from just being a series of how-to tips, or one-size-fits-all instructions that go beyond what the Bible actually states. Sometimes, the most helpful application we can make is to get a different perspective on what's the most important thing, or about how we should respond inwardly to the things going on around us.

PRAY | HOW DOES THIS BRING US TO GOD?

Whether in response to anything pointed out here, or to something else in your Bible reading time, take a few moments before you close up your Bible to pray in response to God. If you need a format for prayer, both the ACTS (Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication), CALL (Confess, Ask, Love, Listen), and PRAY (Praise, Repent, Ask, Yield) methods are helpful ways to stay consistent.

-Sean

Week #49 | The Ministry of Mutual Encouragement

LOOK | WHAT DOES IT SAY?

Acts 20:1-6; 2 Corinthians 1-13; Romans 1-16

THINK | WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Spending Time With Good Friends (Acts 20:1-6). In our shortest reading from Week #49, Paul travels back to Corinth ("Greece," in Acts 20:2) and then back through Philippi (Acts 20:5-6), and also meets with representatives from the Gospel-centered work that was still occurring in the previously reached regions of Galatia and Asia (Acts 20:4). As Paul pointed out in his letter to the Romans, he desired these types of gatherings so that he and those with him "may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith" (Romans 1:12). If the greatest missionary in the history of the Christian faith needed to spend time with other believers so that he might be encouraged by their company, so do we. It might be worthwhile to call up some Christian friends from previous seasons of your life so that you and they might be mutually encouraged by each other.

Gospel-Driven Ministry (2 Corinthians). In the letter of 2 Corinthians, written from Macedonia (around Acts 20:1), Paul continued to write to and guide the church in Corinth. This is pretty incredible if you think about it. Here is Paul, having gone out to further regions, still having a concern for the churches that he has served in the past, and still pastoring them from afar through his network of co-laborers and the communication tools available to him in that day. In fact, this letter is written in preparation of a visit that he intends to make to them. In the letter of 2 Corinthians he defends his Gospel (2 Corinthians 1-6) and his ministry (2 Corinthians 7-13). Everything he does is based on the message that he proclaims. Which should lead us to ask: if we had to write a letter proving to a hostile group that everything we have done is based on the Gospel that we proclaim, could we write that letter convincingly? What would we have to change in our lives in order to be able to write such a letter?

A Defense of the Gospel (Romans). Internal evidence strongly suggests that this letter was written from Corinth, and reflected Paul's desire to travel to the largest city in the country to make the biggest impact for the sake of the Gospel. This is impressive if you think about it, and it's a window into what made Paul such an effective evangelist: here Paul was dealing with a significant issue in the church of Corinth which was worthy of significant amounts of his time, attention, and which demanded his physical presence. He made sure that it received all those things. And yet while he was there, he was already setting his sights on the next frontier and sending a letter ahead of him! We need more forward thinkers in the church like this today. Romans reads like a detailed argument for the Gospel to which Paul holds (Romans 1-11) and to the practical implications of that Gospel in the lives of believers (Romans 12-16). It is worth reading carefully, and slowly, and prayerfully. For its thoroughness and clarity about the message of the greatest missionary who ever lived, it has often been called The Greatest Letter Ever Written.

DO | HOW DO WE RESPOND?

How can we respond in our worship, attitude, and actions? I won't lay out exact responses in this space because the possibilities are often endless. But it is worth it to think about application in the categories of worship, attitude, and actions. Does this reading direct me to God in worship and thanksgiving and praise, or does it direct me towards a change that I need to make here and now? If it's about a change that I need to make, is this something inward in my attitude, or outward in my actions? This helps to rescue application from just being a series of how-to tips, or one-size-fits-all instructions that go beyond what the Bible actually states. Sometimes, the most helpful application we can make is to get a different perspective on what's the most important thing, or about how we should respond inwardly to the things going on around us.

PRAY | HOW DOES THIS BRING US TO GOD?

Whether in response to anything pointed out here, or to something else in your Bible reading time, take a few moments before you close up your Bible to pray in response to God. If you need a format for prayer, both the ACTS (Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication), CALL (Confess, Ask, Love, Listen), and PRAY (Praise, Repent, Ask, Yield) methods are helpful ways to stay consistent.

-Sean

Week #48 | A Wide-Scale Blueprint for Reaching the Lost

LOOK | WHAT DOES IT SAY?

Acts 13-19; Galatians 1-6; 1 Thessalonians 1-5; 2 Thessalonians 1-3; 1 Corinthians 1-16

THINK | WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Mission to Galatia and the Battle for the Gospel (Acts 13:1-15:5 and Galatians). The first sponsored, funded missions trip in history was led by a former persecutor of the church, and it resulted in a major council to sort out what God was doing in the Gentile frontier.  The church had first heard about the opening for the Gospel among non-Jews back in Acts 10-11, but here in Acts 13 the church in Syrian Antioch becomes the sending base for an official, wider mission to the Gentiles. First they went into the region of Galatia, reaching Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13-14). There are some missions and church planting principles evident in these chapters which are worth going back to look at. They experienced encouraging success, but also violent opposition from the Jewish community who followed and opposed them (13:50; 14:2; 14:19). Still, they made a return trip before they finished up, circling back through the places that they had reached and strengthening the fledgling communities there. The process for these early missions seems to have been to preach the Gospel in as broad a region as possible, then circle back to strengthen any groups that actually took hold, and then send back more organized support and instructions afterwards. Upon coming back to their sending church at Syrian Antioch, another group of Christians came from Judea and accused Paul and Barnabas of having preached the wrong Gospel. They insisted that these Gentiles should have had to accept the marks of Judaism to be saved (15:1-2). So they went down to Jerusalem to sort out the matter. This was a high-stakes meeting: the church was being called on to define the Gospel right as it had just started being proclaimed among the nations. Some time after initial discussions with the leaders in Jerusalem, but before an official decision was reached at the Jerusalem Council, Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians, sending it back to the churches he had just founded to defend the Gospel that he had preached to them. Soon afterwards the Jerusalem Council decided in his favor.

Mission to Macedonia, Athens, and Achaia, and Letters to the Thessalonians (Acts 15:6-18:11 and 1-2 Thessalonians). After the Jerusalem council and some initial visits, the Spirit directed Paul into the unreached region of Macedonia (16:6-10). Among the cities that he and his team reach, two are notable for most Christians: the cities of Philippi (Acts 16) and Thessalonica (Acts 17), both of which have biblical letters addressed to them. Unfortunately, while there was good opportunity for the Gospel in those places, the opposition made it impossible for the team to stay there. So they moved on to Athens (Acts 17), and then went to Corinth (Acts 18), where an unusual openness to the Gospel made it possible for Paul to stay there for "a year and six months" (Acts 18:11). This made it possible for Paul to organize the work that had begun, and this is likely when he wrote his letters to the Thessalonians with the input of his helpers Silas and Timothy. It's interesting that although Paul experienced a specific call to Macedonia (Acts 16:6-10), both cities in the area were full of opposition. Just because God calls us to do something, and just because he opens the hearts of people to the Gospel, doesn't mean the work will be easy. Anyone looking for a balanced, stable, gradual, and safe advance of the Gospel is not going to find it. God calls us to hard places to do difficult things.

Ministry in Corinth and Ephesus, and First Letter to the Corinthians (Acts 18:12-19:10 and 1 Corinthians). The two cities of Corinth (in the province of Achaia) and Ephesus (in the province of Asia) were unusually stable and fruitful frontiers for Gospel ministry. However they both had their problems. In the affluent and diverse city of Corinth, Paul seems -as his letters show- to have had to battle nearly every conceivable niche take or distortion of the Gospel that one could imagine, and more. The people were used to the best speakers, the flashiest presentations, and the most well-put together parties. Paul apparently had none of these things. But as his letter shows, he went in as a simple man with a simple message, and the contrast of that approach combined with the power of the Gospel was enough to make people in Corinth pay attention. Afterwards he traveled to Ephesus, which opened up a whole new regional ministry all throughout the province of Asia (Acts 19:10). Through his co-labourers and his letters, though, he continued to battle the divisions that infected the Corinthian church. As the early non-biblical letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians shows, even decades later the church at Corinth was a difficult group. It is hard to take hold of the Gospel when you are still hanging on to worldly standards of wisdom, success, and stability, as the Corinthians were doing.

Riot in Ephesus and Departure to Macedonia (Philippi?) in Acts 19:11-20:1. If Paul would not have been willing to move beyond one particular local ministry and on to further regions, then you and I would still be bowing down today at the pagan altar of Odin or Jupiter or of some druidic deity. It is tempting for us to be very invested in our own thing, and to tend to what we already have going. There is safety and stability in that. But as long as there were new regions where Christ had not been named, Paul was ready to move on as long as he could still support the work that had begun through sending helpers, writing letters, and making return visits. Paul moved on from Philippi in Acts 16, but when the time was right he circled back. He moved on from Thessalonica in Acts 17, but he sent Timothy back and gave them direction through his letters. He moved on from Corinth but continued to provide guidance and support there through writing to them and through the ministry of Titus. Here, he moves on from Ephesus, but we will see later in Acts 20 that he continued to provide guidance to the Elders who he had raised up in that region. This is still relevant for us today. While we should still be concerned to faithfully reach our surrounding neighborhoods, we should also be asking how God might be opening up opportunities in other under-reached areas, and how we could help to reach them. In the last 20 years, Canada has gone from 19% down to only 6.5% Evangelical Christian. How might we see that number change in the next few years if we enabled visionary missions works, and adopted the expansionist, large-scale missionary methods of Paul in our own regions and beyond?

DO | HOW DO WE RESPOND?

How can we respond in our worship, attitude, and actions? I won't lay out exact responses in this space because the possibilities are often endless. But it is worth it to think about application in the categories of worship, attitude, and actions. Does this reading direct me to God in worship and thanksgiving and praise, or does it direct me towards a change that I need to make here and now? If it's about a change that I need to make, is this something inward in my attitude, or outward in my actions? This helps to rescue application from just being a series of how-to tips, or one-size-fits-all instructions that go beyond what the Bible actually states. Sometimes, the most helpful application we can make is to get a different perspective on what's the most important thing, or about how we should respond inwardly to the things going on around us.

PRAY | HOW DOES THIS BRING US TO GOD?

Whether in response to anything pointed out here, or to something else in your Bible reading time, take a few moments before you close up your Bible to pray in response to God. If you need a format for prayer, both the ACTS (Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication), CALL (Confess, Ask, Love, Listen), and PRAY (Praise, Repent, Ask, Yield) methods are helpful ways to stay consistent.

-Sean