From the pen of the brilliant Al Mohler....http://www.almohler.com/
"Election cycles serve to confuse as well as to reveal. Reading voting patterns is not quite like reading a CAT-scan, but something does appear to be happening among some parts of the electorate that had been solidly pro-life in voting patterns.
The Boston Globe reports on developments that now appear among at least some Roman Catholic and Evangelical voters.
As the paper reports, the argument now takes a form something like this: That the legislative battle to outlaw abortion is hopeless and that antiabortion groups would be better off devoting themselves to preventing unwanted pregnancies and persuading pregnant women to carry their fetuses to term rather than trying to change the laws of the land.
For several months now, some have argued that pro-life voters might plausibly vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate, because the pro-abortion rights candidate might lead to social effects that might lead to some reduction in abortion rates.
As the Boston paper points out, this was the very argument put forth by former President Bill Clinton, who argued that he would make abortion "safe, legal, and rare."
Now, similar arguments are being promoted by backers of Sen. Barack Obama, who is the most extreme proponent of abortion rights ever to gain a major party's nomination for President. This line of argument has attracted both Roman Catholics like Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec and some evangelical voices as well.
Nicholas Cafardi, a legal scholar at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, wrote last month: "While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle - permanently."
That is quite an argument -- that the abortion battle has been lost permanently. There is good cause to wonder if he is right. Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand is now an ingrained part of American culture. Many Americans are willing to consider it a "right" even as they would never consider an abortion for themselves. Roe is now a precedent protected by a wall of other precedents in the law. If Roe were to be overturned tomorrow, we would be in for a battle on a state-by-state basis that might take decades -- and might not turn out as we hope.
I can understand the fatigue and the sense of frustration. On the other hand, we have witnessed a growing respect for life as ultrasound technologies have opened the womb to view. We have seen the Supreme Court allow that some abortion procedures can be ruled outside the law. We see pro-life convictions growing among the young. This is a moral conflict that might take a century or more to run its course.
I can understand the desire to reset the equation, to transcend the tired divisions. I can even understand the desire to move on, to go on to other issues of great and grave concern. I can sense excitement about a candidate who represents generational hope, and whose election could do so much to heal racial lines of division.
But I just cannot get past one crucial, irreducible, and central issue -- the moral status of those unborn lives. They are not mine to negotiate. If abortion were a matter of concern for anything less than this, I would gladly negotiate. But abortion is a matter of life and death, and how can we negotiate with death? What moral sense does it make to settle for death as "safe, legal, and rare?" How safe? How rare?
Our considerations of these questions will reveal what we really think of those millions of unborn lives. Do we consider the battle for their lives permanently lost?
Those fighting for the abolition of slavery pressed on against obstacles and set backs worse than these because, after all, these were human lives they were defending. What if they had listened to those who, after Dred Scott and the Missouri Compromise, said that the battle was "permanently" lost? What if they had been intimidated by critics accusing them of "single-issue" voting?
If every single fetus is an unborn child made in the image of God, there is no moral justification for settling for a vague hope of some reduction in the number of fetal homicides. If the abortion fight is "permanently lost," it will be lost first among those who claim to be defenders of life -- those who tell us that the argument is merely changing."
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Anti-women Feminists
Every since Sarah Palin decided to join the McCain ticket she has been barraged and attacked from all over the place. For one example of this hatred click here http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/effigy-palin-hanging-noose-halloween-fun-says-owner/
One of the surprising groups that has consistently attacked Gov. Palin has been the "Feminist camp." Now you would think that this group of ladies would be thrilled that the Republican party choose a gifted WOMAN as the parties first ever national V.P. pick. You would think that they would thrilled George W Bush choose a black woman (Ms. Rice) to serve as our nations Secretary of State.
Feminists are not for the advancement of women in the workplace and home. Feminists are really only for women who think and act like they think and act. Because Sarah Palin supports more traditional/conservative values she is considered an outsider to this group. I mean heaven forbid that a powerful, intelligent, woman actually supports the right to life for unborn babies OR marriage as defined as a union between one man and one woman. The crazy thing is that Sarah Palin is more than likely an Egalitarian (an Evangelical Feminist) yet Feminists treat her like dirt. Could you imagine if she were actually a Complementarian? Hell's guns would attempt to shoot her off the face of the planet.
You probably already knew this but in case you didn't i thought I'd say it again. Feminists are not for the advancement of women in the workplace and home. Feminists are really only for women who think and act like they think and act.
One of the surprising groups that has consistently attacked Gov. Palin has been the "Feminist camp." Now you would think that this group of ladies would be thrilled that the Republican party choose a gifted WOMAN as the parties first ever national V.P. pick. You would think that they would thrilled George W Bush choose a black woman (Ms. Rice) to serve as our nations Secretary of State.
Feminists are not for the advancement of women in the workplace and home. Feminists are really only for women who think and act like they think and act. Because Sarah Palin supports more traditional/conservative values she is considered an outsider to this group. I mean heaven forbid that a powerful, intelligent, woman actually supports the right to life for unborn babies OR marriage as defined as a union between one man and one woman. The crazy thing is that Sarah Palin is more than likely an Egalitarian (an Evangelical Feminist) yet Feminists treat her like dirt. Could you imagine if she were actually a Complementarian? Hell's guns would attempt to shoot her off the face of the planet.
You probably already knew this but in case you didn't i thought I'd say it again. Feminists are not for the advancement of women in the workplace and home. Feminists are really only for women who think and act like they think and act.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Obama on homosexuality
Obama claims to be a Christian. Some people believe he will be the President that will unite the two major political parties in America. Here is how Obama views the Biblical sin of homosexuality.
Story taken from Justin Taylor http://theologica.blogspot.com/
"Robert Gagnon--the leading evangelical scholar on homosexuality and the Bible--has a new article online: Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex. On his homepage, Dr. Gagnon writes:
Regardless of how one votes on election day, it is important to be aware of how this presidential candidate interprets Scripture to fit his political views and what kind of impact this will have on his policies regarding government endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual practice should he become president. Obama's record is clear:
Obama wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which he has called “abhorrent”, even though the Act's main purpose is merely to prevent “gay marriage” adopted in one state from being foisted on all other states. Even Hillary Clinton did not come out in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.
In Obama's own words: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."
Obama strongly opposes California’s Proposition 8, which merely limits the definition of marriage to a “marriage between a man and a woman.”
Obama has stated that he “respects” the California Supreme Court decision foisting “gay marriage” on the state.
Obama opposes any federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Obama strongly endorses granting every single marriage benefit to homosexual unions, not to mention every “sexual orientation” special protections law imaginable. Such legislation will make civil and cultural bigots of everyone who espouses a male-female prerequisite to sexual relations, in the workplace, at school, in the media, and throughout the public sector..."
Story taken from Justin Taylor http://theologica.blogspot.com/
"Robert Gagnon--the leading evangelical scholar on homosexuality and the Bible--has a new article online: Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex. On his homepage, Dr. Gagnon writes:
Regardless of how one votes on election day, it is important to be aware of how this presidential candidate interprets Scripture to fit his political views and what kind of impact this will have on his policies regarding government endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual practice should he become president. Obama's record is clear:
Obama wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which he has called “abhorrent”, even though the Act's main purpose is merely to prevent “gay marriage” adopted in one state from being foisted on all other states. Even Hillary Clinton did not come out in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.
In Obama's own words: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."
Obama strongly opposes California’s Proposition 8, which merely limits the definition of marriage to a “marriage between a man and a woman.”
Obama has stated that he “respects” the California Supreme Court decision foisting “gay marriage” on the state.
Obama opposes any federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Obama strongly endorses granting every single marriage benefit to homosexual unions, not to mention every “sexual orientation” special protections law imaginable. Such legislation will make civil and cultural bigots of everyone who espouses a male-female prerequisite to sexual relations, in the workplace, at school, in the media, and throughout the public sector..."
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Worship Songs
Top 10 Ways to Write Bad Worship Songs
BY Bob Kauflin:
1. Aim to write the next worldwide worship hit.
2. Spend all your time working on the music, not the words.
3. Spend all your time working on the words, not the music.
4. Don’t consider the range and capabilities of the average human voice.
5. Never let anyone alter the way God originally gave your song to you.
6. Make sure the majority of your songs talk about what we do and feel rather than who God is and what he’s done.
7. Try to use as many Scriptural phrases as you can, and don’t worry about how they fit together.
8. Cover as many themes as possible.
9. Use phrases and words that are included in 95% of all worship songs.
10. Forget about Jesus and what he accomplished at the cross.
For the full article click here http://www.worshipmatters.com/2008/10/top-ten-ways-to-write-bad-worship-songs/
BY Bob Kauflin:
1. Aim to write the next worldwide worship hit.
2. Spend all your time working on the music, not the words.
3. Spend all your time working on the words, not the music.
4. Don’t consider the range and capabilities of the average human voice.
5. Never let anyone alter the way God originally gave your song to you.
6. Make sure the majority of your songs talk about what we do and feel rather than who God is and what he’s done.
7. Try to use as many Scriptural phrases as you can, and don’t worry about how they fit together.
8. Cover as many themes as possible.
9. Use phrases and words that are included in 95% of all worship songs.
10. Forget about Jesus and what he accomplished at the cross.
For the full article click here http://www.worshipmatters.com/2008/10/top-ten-ways-to-write-bad-worship-songs/
Friday, October 17, 2008
Christians and abortion
Justin Taylor of http://theologica.blogspot.com/ linked to this sermon by Russell Moore from SBTS
Justin writes, "One of the most poignant sections of the sermon comes when Moore makes a comparison between “Christians” of a former generation who tolerated the lynching of African-Americans and “Christians” of this generation who tolerate the atrocity of abortion:
“There are churches, and there are pastors, and there are young evangelical leaders who are saying to us, ‘We ought not be single-issue evangelicals. We ought to be concerned about more issues than simply abortion.’ Which means that we ought to be willing to join ourselves and to vote for and to support candidates who will support legalized abortion, who will deny the personhood of children who are still in the womb, because we are able to support them on other issues . . . Many of them are in a desperate quest to say to their congregations and to people potentially in their congregations, ‘I’m not Jerry Falwell.’ And many of them believe that it is missional to speak to people while blunting or silencing a witness about the life of children so that you can reach them with the gospel. . . Some will tell us there are many other issues: economics, global warming—issues I’m very concerned about too. Previous generations have said that as well. Previous generations of preachers have stood in the pulpit and preached until they were red in the face about card-playing and movie-going and tax-policy and personal morality and tobacco-smoking and a thousand other issues, but would not speak to the fact that there were African-American brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus swinging in the trees! And there is judgment of God upon that. And there is here too.'"
This is a message that needs to be distributed far and wide. I hope you will do so.
“Joseph of Nazareth Is a Single-Issue Evangelical: The Father of Jesus, the Cries of the Helpless, and Change You Can Believe In” (Matt. 2:13-23) - by Russell Moore
Justin writes, "One of the most poignant sections of the sermon comes when Moore makes a comparison between “Christians” of a former generation who tolerated the lynching of African-Americans and “Christians” of this generation who tolerate the atrocity of abortion:
“There are churches, and there are pastors, and there are young evangelical leaders who are saying to us, ‘We ought not be single-issue evangelicals. We ought to be concerned about more issues than simply abortion.’ Which means that we ought to be willing to join ourselves and to vote for and to support candidates who will support legalized abortion, who will deny the personhood of children who are still in the womb, because we are able to support them on other issues . . . Many of them are in a desperate quest to say to their congregations and to people potentially in their congregations, ‘I’m not Jerry Falwell.’ And many of them believe that it is missional to speak to people while blunting or silencing a witness about the life of children so that you can reach them with the gospel. . . Some will tell us there are many other issues: economics, global warming—issues I’m very concerned about too. Previous generations have said that as well. Previous generations of preachers have stood in the pulpit and preached until they were red in the face about card-playing and movie-going and tax-policy and personal morality and tobacco-smoking and a thousand other issues, but would not speak to the fact that there were African-American brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus swinging in the trees! And there is judgment of God upon that. And there is here too.'"
This is a message that needs to be distributed far and wide. I hope you will do so.
“Joseph of Nazareth Is a Single-Issue Evangelical: The Father of Jesus, the Cries of the Helpless, and Change You Can Believe In” (Matt. 2:13-23) - by Russell Moore
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Piper on sermon preperation
C.J. Mahaney: Most of these guys are already in the process of preparing a sermon for this Sunday. If they were to meet with you for lunch, how would you counsel them about both the preparation process and the preaching event?
John Piper: The most important thing I want to say in answer to that question is this: There isn’t any technique to preaching. It is not a technique. It is not a profession that you go to a homiletics class to learn how to do. God is doing sermon preparation when your throat is blazing with yellow pustules and you have a fever and you feel like quitting. He is doing sermon preparation there. Don’t begrudge the seminary of suffering. Don’t begrudge the marriage difficulties. Don’t begrudge the parental stuff that is so hard. He is making you a preacher. He is making you a pastor. So the main preparation work is walking with him through it all, and going deep with him, and being there and not running away from it into endless food or television.
That would be a—very practical thing to do would be to get rid of your television so that you have some time, family time and reading time and reflection time, and basically keep your mind free from pornography. We were talking about this pornography thing over lunch the other day, and we who are 60 years old were reflecting on how difficult it was to get pornography when we were teenagers. The implication of that is that in my brain I have two pornographic images from my teen years. I found a Playboy in a Laundromat, and they were passing a really weird book around in the locker room one day. I remember both images like I saw them yesterday. Most of you have a thousand images in your brain. That really makes sermon preparation hard, but not impossible. He died to purify our conscience, although you make your job a lot harder if you keep going to that cesspool. …Keep your minds from being contaminated, because the preparation moment is a heart/mind thing in which every three minutes you are crying out to the Lord as you are reading your text in Greek or Hebrew or English. You are reading it and you are saying, “God, please. I have got to have a word. I have got to have a word for my people. Let me see what is really here.” That is a prayer for the mind part. My points must be here in the text. I can’t make this up. My people have to see it. I have to see it. I don’t want to pull rank on these folks by quoting Greek—and they say, “I don’t see that,” and I say, “Well, believe me it is there.” I don’t want to do that. I want them to see what is really there, so I need to see what is really there. So I am pleading with the Lord, “Show me what is there.”And then I am pleading just as strong, “Help me to feel what is there. If it is a horrible thing, help me to feel horrible. If it is a beautiful thing, help me to feel thrilled over its beauty. Bring this dead heart into some kind of conformity—moral, affectual conformity to what is really there.”Those are my two kinds of prayers, light and heat. If you try to work it up without the Holy Spirit giving it, people will know. They will know. Your people will know sooner or later. “I don’t think that was a real affection. That was planned.”So there are a thousand details I could say about the preparation moment as far as poking at the text, but the preaching moment is the same. You plead with the Lord. I do APTAT, before I stand up. A—I admit, O Lord, that I can do nothing of any lasting value.P—I pray for self forgetfulness, for fullness of the Holy Spirit, for love, for humility, for passion, for zeal, for prophetic utterance that may come to my mind while I am preaching so that I can say things that I hadn’t prepared that might penetrate where nothing else would. T—I trust a particular promise from the Lord that I have found in my devotions early in the morning. So today I read Deborah’s song in Judges 5 as well as Psalm 84 between 6:30 and 7:00 this morning, and pointed out a verse to Mark as we were sitting there. “Oh my soul, ride on in strength.” That was my word this morning. The Lord gave a word from his Word this morning: “Ride on in strength.” So I take that. That’s my T: trust. So as I am walking up, I am saying, “This is your work. It has come. Don’t leave me here. You have got to do something here. I am counting on you.”And he is saying, “I got this under control.” He is God.A—Then you act. You have got to do it. It is your hands that are moving. It is your voice that is moving. You have got to do this. Walking by the Spirit, putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, being led by the Spirit, bearing the fruits of the Spirit is a mystery. “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10, ESV). That is the mystery. So sermon preparation is: You put out when you are preparing and when you are preaching.
You put out, but if you have prayed and done APTAT and God is merciful, you won’t be putting out. He will be putting out. T—Thank God. And when you have acted and you go sit down, you thank him. He is going to do, and is doing what he is going to do, and he regularly does more than you think he does. I don’t think after 28 years of preaching that I can correlate with any degree of confidence my sense of effectiveness in the moment and the true effectiveness of the moment. I don’t know any keys to know how to correlate those two. This keeps me from being too excited or too depressed. The Lord will be sure to put me in my place if I do the one and lift me up if I do the other, because he said, “I am working out there in ways you can’t make happen at all. You thought that was a good thing to say? That wasn’t it. You missed it. That wasn’t what did it. This thing over here that you didn’t even know I gave you did it, and you will find out in heaven that that happened.”
John Piper: The most important thing I want to say in answer to that question is this: There isn’t any technique to preaching. It is not a technique. It is not a profession that you go to a homiletics class to learn how to do. God is doing sermon preparation when your throat is blazing with yellow pustules and you have a fever and you feel like quitting. He is doing sermon preparation there. Don’t begrudge the seminary of suffering. Don’t begrudge the marriage difficulties. Don’t begrudge the parental stuff that is so hard. He is making you a preacher. He is making you a pastor. So the main preparation work is walking with him through it all, and going deep with him, and being there and not running away from it into endless food or television.
That would be a—very practical thing to do would be to get rid of your television so that you have some time, family time and reading time and reflection time, and basically keep your mind free from pornography. We were talking about this pornography thing over lunch the other day, and we who are 60 years old were reflecting on how difficult it was to get pornography when we were teenagers. The implication of that is that in my brain I have two pornographic images from my teen years. I found a Playboy in a Laundromat, and they were passing a really weird book around in the locker room one day. I remember both images like I saw them yesterday. Most of you have a thousand images in your brain. That really makes sermon preparation hard, but not impossible. He died to purify our conscience, although you make your job a lot harder if you keep going to that cesspool. …Keep your minds from being contaminated, because the preparation moment is a heart/mind thing in which every three minutes you are crying out to the Lord as you are reading your text in Greek or Hebrew or English. You are reading it and you are saying, “God, please. I have got to have a word. I have got to have a word for my people. Let me see what is really here.” That is a prayer for the mind part. My points must be here in the text. I can’t make this up. My people have to see it. I have to see it. I don’t want to pull rank on these folks by quoting Greek—and they say, “I don’t see that,” and I say, “Well, believe me it is there.” I don’t want to do that. I want them to see what is really there, so I need to see what is really there. So I am pleading with the Lord, “Show me what is there.”And then I am pleading just as strong, “Help me to feel what is there. If it is a horrible thing, help me to feel horrible. If it is a beautiful thing, help me to feel thrilled over its beauty. Bring this dead heart into some kind of conformity—moral, affectual conformity to what is really there.”Those are my two kinds of prayers, light and heat. If you try to work it up without the Holy Spirit giving it, people will know. They will know. Your people will know sooner or later. “I don’t think that was a real affection. That was planned.”So there are a thousand details I could say about the preparation moment as far as poking at the text, but the preaching moment is the same. You plead with the Lord. I do APTAT, before I stand up. A—I admit, O Lord, that I can do nothing of any lasting value.P—I pray for self forgetfulness, for fullness of the Holy Spirit, for love, for humility, for passion, for zeal, for prophetic utterance that may come to my mind while I am preaching so that I can say things that I hadn’t prepared that might penetrate where nothing else would. T—I trust a particular promise from the Lord that I have found in my devotions early in the morning. So today I read Deborah’s song in Judges 5 as well as Psalm 84 between 6:30 and 7:00 this morning, and pointed out a verse to Mark as we were sitting there. “Oh my soul, ride on in strength.” That was my word this morning. The Lord gave a word from his Word this morning: “Ride on in strength.” So I take that. That’s my T: trust. So as I am walking up, I am saying, “This is your work. It has come. Don’t leave me here. You have got to do something here. I am counting on you.”And he is saying, “I got this under control.” He is God.A—Then you act. You have got to do it. It is your hands that are moving. It is your voice that is moving. You have got to do this. Walking by the Spirit, putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, being led by the Spirit, bearing the fruits of the Spirit is a mystery. “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10, ESV). That is the mystery. So sermon preparation is: You put out when you are preparing and when you are preaching.
You put out, but if you have prayed and done APTAT and God is merciful, you won’t be putting out. He will be putting out. T—Thank God. And when you have acted and you go sit down, you thank him. He is going to do, and is doing what he is going to do, and he regularly does more than you think he does. I don’t think after 28 years of preaching that I can correlate with any degree of confidence my sense of effectiveness in the moment and the true effectiveness of the moment. I don’t know any keys to know how to correlate those two. This keeps me from being too excited or too depressed. The Lord will be sure to put me in my place if I do the one and lift me up if I do the other, because he said, “I am working out there in ways you can’t make happen at all. You thought that was a good thing to say? That wasn’t it. You missed it. That wasn’t what did it. This thing over here that you didn’t even know I gave you did it, and you will find out in heaven that that happened.”
Friday, October 10, 2008
Biblical Womanhood document
Check out this new document http://www.truewoman.com/assets/files/TW08_Manifesto.pdf
that supports Biblical womanhood.
that supports Biblical womanhood.
KOLSTAD Vacation to the Dells
This was really our first family vacation of the year and we praise God for this "time away." My younger brother Jordan was able to join us on this road trip to the Dells via Madison. It had been over 15 years since my last trip to Wi Dells. The last time i went to the Dells i was the child enjoying vacation with my parents and siblings. I am grateful for God's kindness in giving my my own family to love and to shepherd.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Should Christian parents continue to spank there children?
Should Christian parents continue to spank there precious kids? Al Mohler helps answer this question with Biblical precision here
Here is his conclusion but read the whole article here http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2609
Christian parents have a special stake in this controversy, because the Bible speaks so directly to the use of corporal punishment and the necessity of disciplining disobedient children. Furthermore, Christian parents should feel a shiver go down the spine when the United Nations is invoked as the moral authority.
Professor Kazdin's article also reminds us of the limitations of science and the inadequacy of scientism as a worldview. There is no such authority as "the science," and the contradictory debris of now outdated scientific theories and "findings" should be sufficient and persuasive evidence of that fact.
I do agree with Professor Kazdin on this major point: "The typical parent, when whacking a misbehaving child, doesn't pause to wonder: 'What does science have to say about the efficacy of corporal punishment?'"
Perhaps some smart child will keep Professor Kazdin's article at hand, to be pulled out the next time mom or dad decides to spank. Nice try kid, but I wouldn't count on that working, either.
Here is his conclusion but read the whole article here http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2609
Christian parents have a special stake in this controversy, because the Bible speaks so directly to the use of corporal punishment and the necessity of disciplining disobedient children. Furthermore, Christian parents should feel a shiver go down the spine when the United Nations is invoked as the moral authority.
Professor Kazdin's article also reminds us of the limitations of science and the inadequacy of scientism as a worldview. There is no such authority as "the science," and the contradictory debris of now outdated scientific theories and "findings" should be sufficient and persuasive evidence of that fact.
I do agree with Professor Kazdin on this major point: "The typical parent, when whacking a misbehaving child, doesn't pause to wonder: 'What does science have to say about the efficacy of corporal punishment?'"
Perhaps some smart child will keep Professor Kazdin's article at hand, to be pulled out the next time mom or dad decides to spank. Nice try kid, but I wouldn't count on that working, either.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Why Expository Preaching
My friend Matt Waymeyer posted this at my other group blog site http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/ This is great stuff!"
Once a pastor has committed himself to the faithful exposition of God’s Word—often known as expository preaching—he is faced with the question of what exactly to preach on a weekly basis. The Word of God, of course, but which specific passages? There are three basic approaches a preacher can follow. First, he can select a different passage every week, with each passage having little or no relationship to the previous one. In this way, each passage would be handled in an expository fashion, but there would be no deliberate flow or cohesiveness from one week to the next. For example, he might preach Ephesians 5:22-24 the first week, Psalm 119:9-16 the second week, Mark 10:13-16 the third week, and so on. You might call this random exposition. Second, he can select a group of passages, each of which deal with the same topic or theme, and then preach them week after week until the series is completed. For example, he could do a series on having a biblical view of God’s Word by preaching Psalm 19:7-11 the first week, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 the second week, 1 Peter 2:1-3 the third week, etc., until he is ready to move on to the next series. You could call this thematic exposition. There is a third approach, however, which I believe is the best option for the preacher who is in the pulpit on a regular basis, and that is consecutive exposition. Put simply, consecutive exposition consists of preaching verse-by-verse through entire books of the Bible. On Sunday mornings I have most recently preached through the entirety of Philippians and Habakkuk, and I am currently preaching through 1 Peter. Last week I preached 1 Peter 2:4-8, this Sunday I will preach 1 Peter 2:9-10, followed by 1 Peter 2:11-12 the next week, and so on. When I complete 1 Peter, I may take a few weeks to do some “stand-alone” messages—or even a brief series of thematic exposition—but sooner than later I will start again on the very first verse of a new book. This is consecutive exposition. All things being equal, I highly recommend this as the primary approach for a pastor to take. There may be strategic times to step back from a book study, but I believe there are the most advantages to consistent consecutive exposition. Why do I say that?
For several reasons, most of which I have probably borrowed from others, but here they are:1. It introduces the congregation to a wide range of Scripture.
2. It ensures that infrequently traveled areas of Scripture are covered.
3. It increases the probability of accurate interpretation.
4. It cultivates sound habits of personal Bible study in the congregation.
5. It saves the preacher time on:
A. selecting the next passage
B. planning the next series
C. studying the historical background and literary context of the next passage
6. It enables the preacher to plan ahead with ease.
7. It prevents the preacher from:
A. constantly gravitating toward favorite passages or themes
B. avoiding passages that are difficult to interpret
C. avoiding passages that confront his beliefs or lifestyle
D. targeting the sin of specific individuals in the congregation
E. using the pulpit to battle theological opponents in the church
8. It provides opportunity for both the preacher and the congregation to see that all of Scripture is indeed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, even those passages which don’t initially seem relevant to their lives."
By Matt Waymeyer
Once a pastor has committed himself to the faithful exposition of God’s Word—often known as expository preaching—he is faced with the question of what exactly to preach on a weekly basis. The Word of God, of course, but which specific passages? There are three basic approaches a preacher can follow. First, he can select a different passage every week, with each passage having little or no relationship to the previous one. In this way, each passage would be handled in an expository fashion, but there would be no deliberate flow or cohesiveness from one week to the next. For example, he might preach Ephesians 5:22-24 the first week, Psalm 119:9-16 the second week, Mark 10:13-16 the third week, and so on. You might call this random exposition. Second, he can select a group of passages, each of which deal with the same topic or theme, and then preach them week after week until the series is completed. For example, he could do a series on having a biblical view of God’s Word by preaching Psalm 19:7-11 the first week, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 the second week, 1 Peter 2:1-3 the third week, etc., until he is ready to move on to the next series. You could call this thematic exposition. There is a third approach, however, which I believe is the best option for the preacher who is in the pulpit on a regular basis, and that is consecutive exposition. Put simply, consecutive exposition consists of preaching verse-by-verse through entire books of the Bible. On Sunday mornings I have most recently preached through the entirety of Philippians and Habakkuk, and I am currently preaching through 1 Peter. Last week I preached 1 Peter 2:4-8, this Sunday I will preach 1 Peter 2:9-10, followed by 1 Peter 2:11-12 the next week, and so on. When I complete 1 Peter, I may take a few weeks to do some “stand-alone” messages—or even a brief series of thematic exposition—but sooner than later I will start again on the very first verse of a new book. This is consecutive exposition. All things being equal, I highly recommend this as the primary approach for a pastor to take. There may be strategic times to step back from a book study, but I believe there are the most advantages to consistent consecutive exposition. Why do I say that?
For several reasons, most of which I have probably borrowed from others, but here they are:1. It introduces the congregation to a wide range of Scripture.
2. It ensures that infrequently traveled areas of Scripture are covered.
3. It increases the probability of accurate interpretation.
4. It cultivates sound habits of personal Bible study in the congregation.
5. It saves the preacher time on:
A. selecting the next passage
B. planning the next series
C. studying the historical background and literary context of the next passage
6. It enables the preacher to plan ahead with ease.
7. It prevents the preacher from:
A. constantly gravitating toward favorite passages or themes
B. avoiding passages that are difficult to interpret
C. avoiding passages that confront his beliefs or lifestyle
D. targeting the sin of specific individuals in the congregation
E. using the pulpit to battle theological opponents in the church
8. It provides opportunity for both the preacher and the congregation to see that all of Scripture is indeed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, even those passages which don’t initially seem relevant to their lives."
By Matt Waymeyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)