One of my colleagues passed this along. It is a sermon, complete with a large bed-sheet sermon chart. About two years ago I blogged about DCHS’ acquisition of Noble Tester’s collection of sermon charts (http://mcgarveyice.blogspot.com/2006/04/noble-tester-collection.html). The chart in the youtube sermon bears some resemblance, in content and in style, to a few in the Tester collection. Thought you would enjoy seeing a sermon-chart sermon in action.
To that portion of the Christian ministry who can read the Sacred Scriptures, in their original tongues, and who, from their education, must frequently stand on the walls of Zion, to defend the Ark of the Covenant from the assaults of Infidels and Heresiarchs, we recommend the following library, as a portion of their armor and munitions of war, offensive and defensive:
1. The Hebrew Bible--Simonis Biblia Hebraica
2. Analysis Critica Practica, Psalmorum. This valuable work gives a critical analysis of every word in the Psalms of David. 3. Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicon, or Baxter's Analytic Dictionary. 4. Leigh's Critica Sacra. 5. Septuagint, Leipsic edition. 6. The London Polyglott, containing eight languages--Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and common English version. This is a great luxury. It may be purchased for $70, neatly bound. 7. Campbell's Four Gospels. 8. McKnight's Epistles. 9. Stuart's Translation of the Romans, with critical notes. 10. Stuart's translation of the Hebrews, with critical notes. 11. Robinson's Harmony of the Four Gospels, in Greek. 12. The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament. 13. Robertson's Greek Lexicon, Canterbury edition, 1676, if it can be found; if not, Scapula. 14. Bretschneider's lexicon. 15. The English Hexapla, London, 1841. This valuable work contains the Greek text, after Scholz, with the various readings of the received text, and the principal Constantinopolitan and Alexandrine manuscripts, and a complete collection of Scholz text, with Griesbach's edition of A.D. 1805. The six versions are Wickliffe's, Tyndal's, Cranmer's, Genevan, Anglo-Rhemish, Authorized, 1611. There is in it a valuable historical account of the English translations.
16. For everyday use, Greenfield's Greek New Testament, with a Greek and English Lexicon annexed. 17. Bloomfield's do. 18. The Critical Greek and English New Testament, with the Greek text of Scholz; readings textual and marginal, of Griesbach, with the variations of Stevens, Beza, and Elzivir, London edition. These last constitute the itinerating Christian preacher's vade mecum.
For the evangelists and elders of churches, who read only the English tongues, we commend the following. [Such of those in our first class who have not the following works, had better, if convenient, add them to their library.]
1. The Common English Version of the Polyglott Bible, London edition. 2. The Holy Bible, containing the authorized version, with some 20,000 emendations or alterations, plates and maps. It is, indeed, in itself, a condensed and valuable commentary on the Common Version. 3. Cruden's English Concordance. 4. Townsend's Bible. 5. Coit's Bible. 6. Horne's Introduction, 4 volumes. 7. Anderson's Annals of the English Bible, 2 vols., London. 8. Prideaux Connections. 9. Shuckford's Connections. 10. Calmet's Dictionary of the Bible. 11. Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Ed. by J. Newton Brown. 12. Giesler's Text Book of Ecc. History, 3 vols. 13. Jones' Church History. 14. Neander's Church History. 15. Waddington's Church History. 16. Neal's History of the Puritans. 17. Josephus. 18. Lord King's Primitive Church. 19. Cave's Primitive Christianity. 20. Campbell's Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. 21. Campbell's Pulpit Eloquence. 22. Taylor's Ancient (not Primitive) Christianity. 23. Paley's works, in 1 vol. 24. Sherlock on Providence. 25. Ernesti on Interpretation. 26. Greenleaf on Evidence. 27. Taylor's Manual of Ancient History. 28. Barrow on the Supremacy of the Pope. 29. Campbell and Purcell's Debate on Popery. 30. D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation. 31. Guizot's Modern Civilization. 32. Campbell and Owen's Debate on the Evidences of Christianity. 33. Campbell and Rice's Debate on Baptism. 34. Gaussen on Interpretation. 35. The Christian Baptist, Burnet's edition, stereotype. 36. Christian Baptism, with its Antecedents and Consequents, now in press. 37. Infidelity Refuted by Infidels. 38. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. 39. All the Bridgewater Treatises on the Being and Perfections of God in Nature. 40. Whewell's Elements of Morality. [His Bridgewater Treatise on the cosmical arrangements of the Universe, with Bell's on the Human Hand, are enough on these subjects.] 41. Comprehensive Commentary on the Bible. 42. As a work of literature, Clark's Commentary.
To these I might add, out of my library, many miscellaneous works and treatises, but these are the best works I have found in many hundred volumes. As Virgil said of farms, I say of libraries: Praise large libraries, but study, or cultivate, small ones. And as a regular hearer of the debate between Luther's party and their opponents, on seeing a reformer, who read no book but the Bible, always routing his opponents, said, so say I, Cave homini unius libri--Take care of the man of the one book. A.C.
Millennial Harbinger, May 1851, 259-260.
--------------------
I promised this little gem a couple weeks ago. A few observations: First of all, notice the assumption that the Christian ministry is educated in the classical languages. Campbell's primary recommednations are Hebrew and Greek texts with the best critical apparati then available. Supporting these, besides several lexica, are the best and most recent contintental, British and American translations then available. For those who do not have capacity with the languages (notice also how he assumes elders will be as well read as any minister) Campbell lists an array of helps to Bible study: heavy on critical translations, with strong doses of Christian history and evidences, as well as a plug for a few of his own works (which are themselves works on Christian history and evidences). An outright commentary set, Adam Clark[e]'s, is noted with what appears to be a vague (backhanded?) compliment. Does Campbell value Clarke's insight, couched as it is in rich literary form, or is commedning Clarke for his literary accomplishment and not his Biblical scholarship? Good question. Also somewhat vague is that last line: Take care of the man of the one book. Is that to say that you should beware of the man who, in the 'defense' of the faith shuns all learning or education (read: books); or is this Campbell's way of stating how all of these helps are helps to the study of the one book that in the end matters? Considering that Campbell had an exquisite library (have you been to Bethany? It is in the middle of nowhere) at a time when most folks didn't have glass in their windows, and given that he has just recommended some of the higher quality Biblical scholarship of his day to his readers, indicates to me that it is the former and not the latter. In other words, beware of these folks who disdain an educated ministry.
The one denomination that has been almost wholly swept into the current of the modern skeptical attitude toward the Scriptures is that denomination that for years has laid no stress on doctrinal preaching. it is not controversial, combative, debative preaching of the fighting order that is needed; nor yet a fragmentary message--"first principles" alone: there is a place for that; but 'doctrinal preaching' after Paul's kind; the verse-by-verse, chapter-by-chapter, book-by-book unfolding of the whole doctrine. Let us tie the churches fast to the Book!"
--Word and Work, September 1925, 277.
-------
I suspect that this little unsigned paragraph is from R.H. Boll (WW Editor) or maybe Stanford Chambers, H.L. Olmstead, or E.L. Jorgenson (Co-Editors). Regardless, I like the point: doctrinal preaching is preaching that emcompasses the full Biblical text and arises from the full Biblical text. Good doctrinal preaching does not assault the hearer with the text. It does not use the Bible as a club with which to beat you or a cannon with which to shoot you. Doctrinal preaching unfolds the text's teaching and mediates the text's message to the church. The church sends the preacher to the text and rightly expects the preacher to return with a word from God that will shape the church into God's intent. Woe to that preacher when the message brought back is something less, or more, than good doctrine. Woe to the preacher who brings back a fight, or another serving of milk. And woe to that church whose expectation is so low as to settle for something less than good doctrine.
Obviously hurt and disillusioned, and probably bitter, Roger Ray nonetheless says some things we need to hear.
If you can give him a sympathetic reading, I think you will find his piece a fairly typical representation of the feelings of many.
Folks in my corner of the woods will react strongly to his jettisoning traditional doctrinal formulations. At the same time, we have been (Churches of Christ) a strongly anti-creedal bunch from the very get-go, so his rejection of such formulations may be closer to our heritage than we would like to admit. That said, I think his response to doctrinaire and abusive preaching, though understandable, is an overreaction. The corrective to bad doctrine isn’t no doctrine, its better doctrine. I suspect he’s heard a lot of sermons which parse doctrine and touch not the hem of the garment of where we all lives our lives. It is ironic that he rejects the claims of deity for Jesus (which Jesus makes for himself, seems to me, and which would subsequently make Jesus and the writers of the New testament documents something less than a good prophet or faithful witnesses, it would make them all liars). Anyhow, though he would reject Jesus as divine, the program he envisions for the church of his dreams is certainly in line with the mission of God, which Jesus so clearly and repeatedly embodies. I don’t think it necessary to jettison faith in Jesus as God in order to embrace a ministry of compassion, peace, mercy or sacrifice. Seems to me that is exactly what claiming to be a Christian, a subject of the Risen Lord, is all about. It is unfortunate that he has reduced it to an either-or scenario when that is unnecessary at best, and at worst misleading concerning the New Testament witness about Jesus and his mission.
As for his Kierkegaard quote, well, that’s wonderful. What a fine commentary on the nonsense that’s unfortunately everywhere present in churches. May God have mercy when we turn church into something trite or crass or self-serving. His criticism of such is worth reading and ought be required reading for every Bible major in every ministry course in our schools.
Now, I understand that his article doesn't represent how everyone feels about church, and there is a lot of good done by a lot of churches (which Mr. Ray doesn’t acknowledge, for whatever reason). But this is how he feels, and I bet a cup of coffee that his column represents many. Probably most of my generation in my demographic (30's, college-educated, city-dwellers and suburbanites) would agree with a lot of what Ray says. So, read his provocative column, especially the final paragraph and ask yourself what reason for faith and ministry would your church offer to a Roger Ray?
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071229/LIFE07/712290332
Our Bodies a Sacrifice
Central Church
Sunday Morning, December 16, 2007
McGarvey Ice
Text: Romans 12.1-21
One of the strategies for reading an occasional letter like Romans is mirror-reading. That is, since Romans is written out of an occasion in the life of its author and its recipients, then it naturally follows that the content of the letter addresses that particular situation. As a mirror reflects the image of what is before it, so the Biblical text reflects the situation of its author and recipients. For example, Romans chapters 9-11 are roughly 20% of the book and are all about Jew/Gentile issues in the larger plan of God. There must have been some sort of significant Jew/Gentile issue in those house churches in Rome for Paul to have spent the time and ink he did.
In Romans 12 we have a situation where there may be any number of people who would really appreciate church better if everyone else were a lot more like them. And we have a church struggling with how to embody the gospel in their daily lives. So, it seems a fair generalization to say that in Rome we have a church troubled within and a church troubled in the marketplace.
Illus. from Randy Harris[1] about the Thinkers. Servers. Worshippers. Justice/Mercy. Contemplatives. There is great diversity in personality, temperament, and tendency to various kinds and styles of ministry. Every church has these sorts of folks. Such is the great blessing for every church and a potential source of great conflict as well. We normalize for others what comes naturally for us. What is easy and natural and so very sensible to us can easily become much more than simply our disposition or preference. We are tempted to trace an outline of our personalities and preferences and manufacture a pattern out of our own image. We then mandate to others that to really live and serve as a faithful Christian, you must look like, think like and act like me.
Given what Paul says in 12.3-13, it appears that there is trouble in Rome. We’ve got church folks who live as church by the ways of the world. When we live life as church by the ways of the world we will have hypocrisy, preference, and selfishness, and jockeying for position, power plays and manipulation. We’ve got Christians in Rome who say my gift matters and yours doesn’t. My gift is special and yours isn’t, and if you were really spiritual you’d be a thinker/server/worshipper/activist/contemplative like me. And if that is the situation in church imagine how they live out in the marketplace. Imagine how powerful the pressure is to conform to the ways of the world, where life is lived by looking out for number one, by exploiting the other person’s weakness for your gain, by demanding your rights and paying back evil with evil.
That’s the situation in Rome, and all too often for us as well. But Paul writes to Rome, and we are reading it. It is scripture for them and it is scripture for us. Paul’s task in Romans is a pastoral task.[2] He writes to Christians in Rome to shape them more and more and more into the image of Christ. Paul’s task is a shepherd’s task: to lead and guide the church along the way of Christ. Paul’s task is a leader’s task: to cast a vision for the church and to lead the charge. Paul’s task is a teacher’s task: to show the better way of Christ and make it plain. By way of this letter, Paul is at once teacher, leader and pastor. He is shepherd, visionary and guide.
Often when preachers and teachers get to Romans 12 they see the gears shift in Paul’s rhetoric. Then they often say something like Romans 1-11 is ‘doctrinal’ and chs. 12-5/16 is ‘practical.’ And in a sense they are right. In 1-11 Paul gives emphasis to theology; in 12-16 he gives emphasis to practical teaching. Unfortunately the distinction between doctrine and practice is often overplayed. Paul doesn’t separate the two nearly as far as some preachers do. Paul doesn’t section off doctrine over here and practice over there. It is a false dichotomy, a false separation, to put doctrine over here as if it is all about thinking and reasoning and understanding and over there is daily life where we all live out the moments and events and ins and outs of our lives.
For Paul the two are integrated. Paul doesn’t write two letters to Rome: one a theological treatise and the other a how-to manual for Christian living. He writes one letter that integrates the teaching about what God has done and therefore what our lives should look like if we embrace the gospel. For Paul doctrine and practice are integrated and if they’re not integrated for us, they ought to be. If Paul doesn’t separate them like this, why should we? If we desire spirituality we will seek to integrate the two; and where they are not integrated, we need to be corrected and formed and shaped and taught.
Paul’s task as preacher, teacher, pastor, shepherd, leader, guide in Romans is to lead the Christian churches in Rome to bring their lives more and more in line with what they say they believe about the gospel. The good news of the gospel is that God has demonstrated his faithfulness to us in Christ. The implication for those who believe the gospel is to offer to him our life of faith.
If we believe the good news of Christ crucified then we will present ourselves to God a living sacrifice conformed not to the world but transformed by the renewing of our minds. Thus Paul can begin to explain how there is a better way to live as the Body of Christ.
First of all it is absurd to boast of a gift. Note the Greek of vs. 6: gift is from the same term as grace. In 12.3-13 Paul anchors life as church in the gracious gifts of God. We did not earn them, do not deserve them, and do not exercise them in our own power. Rather, each has a gift by God’s grace to exercise for the blessing of all, just as God’s grace is for all. God’s intent for the church is to be the people of a transformed mind whose life together reflects the rich variety and diversity of his grace. The church ought to be gracious because God is gracious. They embody his grace in their life together. So when life together as church looks more like the world and less like the grace of God, something is wrong. When we say that your gift is special, or prized, or more worthy, we reveal that what really matters are the values of the world. When we turn the gifts of God’s grace into instruments of pride and boasting we reveal that our lives are not nearly as attuned to the values of the gospel as we would think.
God intends for the life of the church to be a reflection of his grace not only to each other as Christians, but a declaration of his grace to the larger culture. So vss. 14-21 show how the grace of God ought to be made real in the ordinary moments of life.
Do we believe the gospel story: that love triumphs over hate, that grace triumphs over sin, and life overcomes death? If we do, then we will live what we say we believe. If we confess that true doctrine, then our lives must conform to that doctrine. If the gospel is the announcement of good news of the righteousness of God: that while we were still sinners Christ died for the ungodly, then we will seek sinners with a fervor and grace that mirrors God’s toward us. If we say that the gospel story is true, then we will seek peace and blessing for those who persecute us. If when we were enemies of God, Christ laid down his life for us, then we ought to embrace a life of grace and feed our hungry enemies and give drink to our thirsty enemies. If when we were hostile to God, the grace of Christ initiated reconciliation, then we ought to initiate reconciliation with our enemies by rejoicing with them when they rejoice and weeping with them when they weep. If the reign of God’s peace has been made real in our own hearts, then as followers in the way of Christ we must interrupt the escalation of violence by implementing a life of peace.
The way of the world is to kick your enemy in his teeth. It is to step on his neck in order to get ahead. It is to stab her in the back as you push your way to the front of the line. The way of the world is by all means and at any cost and in every way to look out for number one. But the way of Jesus is to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, not to be conformed to this world. The way of Jesus is not to think of yourself more highly than you ought, but to let love be without hypocrisy. The way of Jesus is to hate what is evil, to cling to what is good and to overcome evil with good.
The way of the world is to curse your enemies, but the way of Jesus is to rejoice with your enemy when he rejoices. It is to weep with her when she weeps. The way of Jesus is to seek out the lowly and associate with them.
The way of Jesus is not something in addition to true doctrine; it is the embodiment of true doctrine. In the life of faith, theology and doctrine are not over here somewhere while daily life is over there. The life of faith is the embodiment of what we say we believe, and the living out of the story we say is true. As Christians, we have pledged our allegiance to the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have confessed that that is the true story by which we will live our lives. We have embraced the grace of God in the death of Jesus at our baptism. And at our baptism we have pledged ourselves to God in faith to pursue new life through the resurrection of Jesus. In our baptism we have pledged to carry out the way of Jesus on the stage of our lives. If the story is true then we will honor God not merely by striving for pure doctrine in some abstract sense, but we will integrate true doctrine into our lives and offer to God our bodies a living and holy sacrifice. Amen.
----------
[1] Randall J. Harris, Instructor of Bible, Abilene Christian University, used this illustration on numerous occasions.
[2] See James W. Thompson, Pastoral Ministry According to Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, 85ff.
Two adventurers were soaring moving along in a hot air balloon, when the scenery became unfamiliar; the flyers realized they were lost. Looking below, they spied a man in a yard. One of the two suggested they descend a bit and ask the man for information about their location. One of the flyers yelled at the man 'Where are we?"
Came the reply, "You are in a hot-air balloon about 100 feet in the air." The second man observed, “That man is a preacher.” When asked how he could discern that, he replied, "Every thing he said is true, but it doesn't help us any."
-------------------
The above was in my inbox this morning. It was in a comment in a discussion on one of the email lists I lurk on. I snipped it from its context to make a point or two about preaching, since I’ve been doing more of it lately.
I’ve blogged before about what makes for good preaching and teaching (here and here), and now I’m having to follow my own advice. I’m finishing Romans by teaching through a pericope (about a chapter or so) in the morning class and then announcing its message in the morning sermon. Sunday evenings I am preaching through Galatians since it complements Romans. My task in the class is to do a class well (which for me means historical-critical exegesis). My task in the sermon, while assuming all of what has been explored in the class and not rehashing it, is to preach the message of the text in order to shape the church. I’ve come to really like the approach since I must clarify what the class should be over against what a sermon should be, and then implement the best strategies for the class and the sermon. Obviously, given my training and disposition, it is heavily text-centered (when I teach from Romans I stay in Romans and I don’t hop and skip hither and yon across the canon).
What makes my task easier is the dozen or so years Laura and I have invested at
In other words, I would hope that my preaching is not a declaration of truisms but a holding forth of the word for the sake of the church to shape the church and point the church to God. And I hope the expectations of the church are not low enough so as to be satisfied with truisms that do not further us along the path of righteousness, justice, peace and mercy. And I hope that a decade of warm relationships do not cloud my task, or stop up our ears as we, as church, think together through Scripture when we assemble.
We Do Not Lose Heart…
Homecoming Sermon for Lindsley Avenue Church
October 14, 2007
McGarvey Ice
Text: 2 Corinthians 4.1 :…since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart…. [NASB]
Trouble in the Biblical Text
SIGH Look at what we are up against! Division, personal enemies and opponents of our ministry who would discredit our ministry and distort our teaching. Deep-seated racism and class-hatred in the church, false and misleading teaching on a host of issues, envy and sectarianism, blatant immorality, a crisis of leadership. Why, our worship assemblies sometimes look more like chaotic gatherings to the gods of wine and love than moments of divine grace before the Lord of Life. Our city is on the one hand famous for its cosmopolitan character and on the other hand notorious for its lack of moral character. SIGH, look at what we are up against!
I wonder what it must have been like to be one of Paul’s associates during the years he labored and corresponded with the Christians at Corinth. Sosthenes, Timothy and Titus, along with others, shared ministry with Paul and had a part in the writing and delivering of letters (not to mention personal visits) to and from Corinth. Paul’s ministry in Corinth, and the time he spent in contact with the church there spanned a number of years and a number of letters. What we know is that the church was situated in one of the more important trade centers of the Mediterranean theater. It was truly cosmopolitan and offered the best of Greek and Roman culture. At the same time it offered the worst of idolatry, immorality and competing stories by which life could be lived. Into this circumstance Paul and others declare the good news of God: that Jesus Christ was crucified and buried and is now raised from the dead. Into this situation Paul and others declare that the way of Jesus is the story by which we live. And yet, the church at Corinth is a congregation divided. Personalities, false doctrine, class, ethnic and racial identities, sin, would woo the church from the foundation laid for them in Christ. No wonder we could easily imagine Paul letting out a deep and painful sigh as he receives the latest news or correspondence from his beloved Corinth.
Trouble in the Present Day
One-hundred fifty years ago Cherry Street Christian Church in downtown Nashville was hailed by many as the finest church in the city. It certainly had the finest building, and her minister, Jesse Babcock Ferguson, was praised as the best preacher in the South. But the church was troubled. A few years into his ministry, Ferguson has clearly and openly espoused Universalism and Spiritualism and the peace of the congregation was deeply upset. In fact, when Alexander Campbell himself paid a visit to the Nashville church to assist them, Ferguson left the city, claiming that the ghost of William Ellery Channing had warned him not to meet Campbell. At one time the church was strong, with many capable workers teaching and ministering. But in the late 1850’s the church was broken. In the midst of what we now call the “Ferguson Affair” David Lipscomb began preaching in the suburbs of the growing city. He preached in East Nashville, North Nashville, and here, in South Nashville. After the civil war, as the city was reconstructing itself, this area of town was the intellectual center of Nashville. The universities were here, a good deal of wealth was here. But between this hill and downtown was a slum known as Black Bottom. In the years before the Cumberland River was controlled by dams, that low area would flood and the rich black silt from the river gave the area its name. It was, by all accounts, one of the worst places in Nashville, and its was just down the hill from where we sit this morning. This area of town offered the best and the worst of one of the key cities in the South during Reconstruction. And this area of town would be the place where David Lipscomb would devote the remainder of his life as Elder of the South College Street Christian Church. His first audience in the 1850’s was three ladies and little boy. By 1877, 130 years ago, the little band was able to purchase a corner lot a block from here. A decade later in 1887 they were able to build a building and the congregation grew. As they grew they faced grievous obstacles and grand opportunities. Life in the church in Nashville was in some ways similar to that in Corinth. There was division; there were competing stories that vied for a place in the hearts of Christians. Racism, class-hatred and sectarianism were constant issues. I suspect that David Lipscomb, T. B. Larimore, James A. Harding, J. C. Martin, W. H. Timmons and others could echo Paul’s deep sigh for the church.
Grace in the Biblical Text
Deep as that sigh might have been, Paul was convinced that division, personal enemies, doctrinal upheaval, and immorality would not have the final say as to the hope of the church. For Paul had declared to the Corinthians that the one who establishes them both in Christ and who anointed and who sealed them, and who gave to them the Holy Spirit as a pledge is none other than God himself. Furthermore, Paul declares, as many as are the promises of God, they are YES in Christ Jesus. Paul’s ministry in Corinth is not based upon nor is it rooted in his own personality, his own ethnicity, his own social status, or his own teaching. Paul’s ministry is rooted in the gracious act of God in Christ. His ministry from first to last is Christ, indeed, to sum it up, as God’s promise to us in Christ is YES, so our response and our ministry is AMEN (2 Cor. 1.19-22).
Into troubled Corinth, with all of its promise and all of its peril, Paul declares that God’s gracious promise to us in Christ is YES. Paul will go on to say that his adequacy comes not from himself, but from God (2 Cor. 3.5). For Paul there is something that stands beyond the troubles of the moment that roots and grounds ministry: the grace of God and the mercy of God and the ministry of God. How else could he be hopeful for Corinth? How else could he be so confident as to declare the gospel in that city? How else could he deal so boldly yet patiently and lovingly and tenderly with the church in Corinth? How could he except for the prior work of God? How could he but for the mercy of God and the ministry with which God had blessed him?
Grace in the Present Day
2 Cor. 4.1: “Since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart…” David Lipscomb comments concerning this verse that “as God had committed to him so great a trust, he would not be discouraged or disheartened by the great persecution he endured.” J. W. Shepherd adds that “there was nothing so deep down in his sould, nothing so constantly in his thoughts, as this great experience. No flood of emotion, no pressure of trial, no necessity of conflict, ever drove him from his moorings here. The mercy of God underlay his whole being.”
How else could David Lipscomb, T. B. Larimore, James A. Harding and others declare the gospel in Nashville in the 1850’s, or in 1887, or how can we declare it today given the circumstances we face? How can David Lipscomb dare to plant a congregation when the best and brightest his church had to offer turned out to be a shame to the brotherhood across the South? How can he be so confident as to plant a congregation between his city’s intellectual center and her most squalid slum? How could he but for the mercy of God and the ministry with which God charged him?
How can we venture forth with the good news? When we look around our city we would could very well sigh and shake our heads and say look at what we are up against. Look at how we are afflicted! Look at how we are perplexed! Look at how we are persecuted! Look at how we are struck down! Look at what we are up against!
Henri J. M. Nouwen says this, “Our lives are full of brokenness. Broken dreams, broken relationships, broken promises. How can we live with that brokenness except by returning again and again to God’s faithful presence in our lives?”
Paul says, “We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that they surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.
How can we lay down our lives in such brokenness? We can, since we have this ministry. We can, because we have received mercy. We can because of what God in Christ has done for us and is doing through us for our city. Because of God’s faithful presence in our lives, we do not lose heart. Amen.
---------------------
Postscript: This sermon attempts two things: first I attempt to speak a good word to a congregation on a special anniversary. To that end the sermon recounts some measure of that congregation's history, but places that history in a sermonic context and not a Sunday School class or history lecture context. I am not trying to lecture on the history of the congregation, I am using the history of the congregation as a resource for a sermon to the congregation. Secondly, I attempt to speak a good word to a congregation that deeply desires to minister to a nieghborhood of Nashville that is notorious for drug and gang activity. Though in part revitalized, the area has a way to go. A combination of the southern interstate loop around the central city and the urban development initiative of the 1960's produced a depressed ghetto. Yet the congregation did not leave, or fold, or relocate. Instead, they stayed. And Sunday was a special day when several former members returned. I wanted therefore to speak a word that would contribute to the present work of the congregation, and more than that, to ground ministry in the good news of God in Christ. So the sermon is an attempt to do specific historical theology for the good of a local congregation. As to form, I took a cue from Paul Scott Wilson's "four pages of the sermon" and structured my sermon accordingly: trouble in the biblical text, troble in our world, grace in the biblical text, grace in our world (cf. Thomas Long, The Witness of Preaching 2nd ed., 128-129). One other thing, I did not footnote my quotations.
The fall research season is in full swing. Just today I had three researchers going full-steam. All are graduate students, from Vandy, Lipscomb and U. of Chicago. I'm always energized by sharing scholarship and by facilitating scholarship. Today was a good day for research; and if anyone tells you that people are not interested in our history, then they would be wrong.--------On that note, my presentation to the Tennessee Conference of Historians Saturday at Union University in Jackson, TN went well. Being my first such presentation, I have nothing to which to compare it (at least as far as the presentation is concerned). However, I was comfortable with the paper and the conference as a whole was well-done. The people at Union went out of their way to make it a good experience. The coordinator of the session in which I presented made several thoughtful and genuinely helpful suggestions on the paper. I wasn't expecting that and was very impressed. My paper was entitled: Nashville Churches of Christ, 1866-1906: Patterns of Evangelism for a Growing Fellowship. I've got some more work to do on it, both in the areas of research and interpretation. --------I'm commuting in via Murfreesboro Road now instead of I-24. It's comparable, and sometimes quicker, plus I have yet to brace myself for what I'm sure is an impending rear-end from either 1) an 18 wheeler, 2) a redneck in a large pick-up, 3) women who are putting on make-up. If that sounds snobby or sexist, then you haven't driven I-24 in the mornings; you drive it for 6 years and then get back to me. For the drive home, however, the interstate is still quicker. Most days it flows rather well; today I made it home in about 35 minutes. Lately, I've listened to Bob Randolph and James Walters sermons from Brookline Church in Boston. I burn CD's and can get one, maybe two sermons in one one-way trip (unless Bob gets long-winded).--------Speaking of James Walters, I've found his work on Rome and Romans not only fresh and well-reasoned, but tremendously insightful for a reading and application of Romans. Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the Romans; a book you should own. So, having an opportunity to hear him preach (even if on CD) is a real bonus. (Chad, I'm envious...take good notes!) I met James at Chad Smith's (beautiful) wedding last fall. A fine exegete and a nice guy (both of them).--------Speaking of Romans, we at Central Church will be in chapter 4 Sunday morning. Steve and I are attempting a program of teaching in which I teach the AM class, exegete the text for the day and he preaches the AM sermon on the same text, drawing out from it teaching for the assembly. The trick here is to do a class well (and not preach a sermon under the guise of a Sunday School lesson) and do a sermon well (and not preach as if it is a Sunday School class). I think the approach has real merit. This is the first time we've attempted such and it seems to be going well.--------How about that for a stream-of-consciousness post? I've also added some new blogs, deleted others, and fixed some broken links. I've got more to add as time permits.
In no particular order: questionable exegesis (the homework hasn't been done), condescension, cheese, insulting the intelligence of the audience, dramatics, one-sidedness, oversimplification, overcomplication
in no particular order: clarity, passion, rigorous exegesis, eye-contact, willingness to say "I do not know" when you do not know, theological acumen, humility
The following which we clipped several years ago, and put in our Scrap-book, is as applicable now as then, and may be useful to a good many preachers, and will do none of them any harm to observe.
Here's a gem I ran across this morning:
On a church bulletin, for Palm Sunday 1943, written in bold strokes are these words: "I was so disappointed, for I wanted to hear a good Palm Sunday sermon. He is too inclined to be "cute" and funny."
And again next to the title of the sermon (which was" God at Your Door") this person writes, "terrible sermon."
And now we have it in our archives where it will testify throughout the ages that this particular sermon, at least to one auditor, was a real flop.
Ha ha. Its a humorous find alright, but it also is quite telling. This person, man or woman I cannot fully tell from the handwriting, came to church wanting a good sermon yet was served up a helping of "cute and funny."
I know that you can't please all the people all the time...yada, yada, yada. Still, its a shame when folks come to church asking for bread and get a stone in return.
I'll have my laughs at this little bulletin (the author of which I'm sure never intended his/her comments to be preserved), but I'll also take it seriously when I prepare to preach. For no criticism of preaching (or class, or small group meeting) is so stinging as "it was a waste of my time."
Grace and peace.
