Passion For Preaching

David W. Jones and Russel S. Woodbridge have written an important and much needed book on the prosperity gospel titled, Health, Wealth and Happiness.  In light of the overwhelming popularity of Joel Osteen, the recent controversy surrounding T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer’s $23,000.00 commode (not toilet, so glad they clarified…), and the federal investigation into the ministries of six prosperity preachers ending in 2010, a book like this needed to be written.

Jones and Woodbridge write with the intellect and crispness of scholars and the clarity of pastors.  The first chapter traces the beginnings of the prosperity gospel back to the New Thought movement of the late 1800′s.  New Thought gave rise to the belief system of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the ministry of Norman Vincent Peale, and was especially appealing to universalists like Mary Baker Eddy who founded Christian Science.  The authors identify the pillars of New Though Philosopy as 1) a distorted view of God, 2) an elevation of mind over matter, 3) an exalted view of humankind, 4) a focus on health and wealth, and 5) an unorthodox view of salvation.

Chapter one is important, because in Chapter two, Jones and Woodbridge draw the comparison tight between New Thought and the prosperity gospel by showing that the five pillars of New Thought Philosophy are alive and well in the teaching of the prosperity gospel.  No doubt because of the popularity of Joel Osteen, they use his example to show how the prosperity gospel looks like New Thought philosophy.  Osteen is shown to not only redefine the gospel, but humanity, the scriptures, and basic tenets of theology as well.

In chapter three, the authors point out the errors of the prosperity gospel writing,

the prosperity gospel turns the gospel of Christ into a human-focused religion.  The prosperity gospel teaches believers to depend on their own works, thoughts, and efforts in order to succeed in life.  The biblical gospel shows people that they are sinners and must rely on Jesus’ work on the cross in order to become accepted in the Beloved.

Further, on the atonement, prosperity preachers have claimed that both physical healing and financial prosperity have been provided for on the cross (89).  Prosperity preaching puts the focus for healing and prosperity, not in the sovereign hand of God, but in the faith of the believer.  Notice the nuance, power is found in faith, not in the object of one’s faith.  In stark contrast, Jesus teaches that faith as big as a grain of mustard seed is sufficient to move mountains.

The first half deals with the errors of the prosperity gospel.  The second half deals with corrections to the prosperity gospel.  The final three chapters definitely pale in comparison to the first three chapters.  However, of the three chapters in the second half of the book, chapter four on suffering is certainly the best.

In an effort to provide a corrective to the prosperity gospel movement, Jones and Woodbridge seek to recover the biblical ideal of suffering.  Contrary to the teaching of the prosperity gospel, the authors claim that suffering is indeed biblical and is sometimes necessary for our sanctification.  God actually has a plan in suffering. Suffering is not good, but God certainly accomplishes good through suffering.

In conclusion, I recommend this book strongly for the first three chapters and found the concept of the fourth chapter important in the overall argument of the book.  I also believe that their intention in the final two chapters to commend biblical stewardship and giving is important in helping believers to establish a Christian understanding of prosperity, wealth, and wellness. Nevertheless, I do believe that better treatments are available on stewardship and giving such as Randy Alcorn’s, Money, Possessions, and Eternity. I commend the authors for taking up this important issue.

I must confess at this point that I belong to the old reactionary tendency which regards the man who cannot preach in an interesting and informative manner as simply not called to the preaching ministry.  IF a man mounts a pulpit and cannot set his people’s heart on fire for the Bible, then he had better not step into the pulpit at all, for to put Christians off hearing and reading the Word of God has to be one of the most serious acts one can commit.

Carl Trueman, Reformation: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

Spurgeon had this to say about bad preaching,

If some men were sentenced to hear their own sermons, it would be a righteous judgment upon them; but they would soon cry out with Cain, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.”

As Mother’s Day approaches, many pastors may wrestle with how to handle this holiday and or other holidays in their preaching calendar. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has some helpful advice:

I would lay it down as a rule that there are special occasions which should always be observed.  At this point I have the temerity to express a criticism of the Puritans.  I believe in preaching special sermons on Christmas Day and during the Advent season; I also believe in preaching special sermons on Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Whit Sunday.

How do I justify this?  Well, why did the Puritans object to it?  The answer is, of course, that they objected to these special occasions because of their violent reaction to Roman Catholicism.  The Roman catholicas had turned the celebration of the birth of our Lord into a Mass; and so the Puritans, being creatures of reactions, as we all are, tended to react too violently, with the result that their desire to get rid of everything savouring in any way of the Mass, and everything else associated with Roman Catholic thinking, went to the other extreme and opposed and observance of these days.

While I fully understand their attitude and entirely sympathize with it in general, I nevertheless think they were mistaken…Surely the great danger today, and especially in certain circles, is over-intellectualism.

- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching & Preachers p. 204

The office of the Christian ministry, rightly understood, is the most honourable, and most important, that any man in the whole world can ever sustain; and it will be one of the wonders and employments of eternity to consider the reasons why the wisdom and goodness of God assigned this office to imperfect and guilty man!…the Great design and intention of the office of a Christian preacher are to restore the throne and dominion of God in the souls of men; to display in the most lively colours, and proclaim in the clearest language, the wonderful perfections, offices and grace of the Son of God; and to attract the souls of men into a state of everlasting friendship with him…It is a work which an angel might wish for, as an honour to his character.

- Cotton Mather, Student and Preacher as quoted in John Stott, Between Two Worlds.

“Our plain and cheering duty is therefore to go forward — to scatter the seed, to believe and to wait. Yet must there be expectancy as well as patience.

The warrant of success is assured, not only as regards an outward reformation, but a spiritual change of progressive and universal influence. The fruit of Ministerial labour is not indeed always visible in its symptoms, nor immediate in its results, nor proportioned to the culture.

Faith and patience will be exercised — sometimes severely so. But after a painstaking, weeping seed-time, we shall bring our sheaves with rejoicing, and lay them upon the altar of God, ‘that the offering up of them might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.’

Meanwhile we must beware of saying— ‘Let him make speed, and hasten his work that we may see it.’ The measure and the time are with the Lord. We must let Him alone with His own work.

Ours is the care of service — His is the care of success. The Lord of the harvest must determine when, and what, and where the harvest shall be.”

–Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1830/2005), 76.

HT: Tolle Lege

In a recent article for First Things, Christian Smith writes about the natural, but not necessary tendency toward religion for mankind.  The article is well worth your time and in it, Smith argues that religion is natural to humanity, not because religious practices are universal, but because religious practice exists in every arena where the tendency toward religion is fostered.  In other words, all cultures have the ability to be religious, but some simply do not cultivate that tendency.

Though Smith’s premise is well argued, I was particularly struck by his assertion that belief is a universal human condition,

The first of these natural human tendencies toward religion springs from our universal human condition in relation to what we affirm as true. As I have argued in my book Moral, Believing Animals, all human beings are believers, not knowers who know with certitude. Everything we know is grounded on presupposed beliefs that cannot be verified with more fundamental proof or certainty that provides us assurance that they are true. That is just as true for atheists as for religious adherents. The quest for foundationalist certainty, with which we are all familiar, is a distinctly modern project, one launched as a response to the instabilities and uncertainties of early-modern Europe. But that modern project has failed. There is no universal, rational foundation upon which indubitably certain knowledge can be built. All human knowing is built on believing. That is the human condition.

That means that religious commitment is not fundamentally different from any human belief commitment. It involves the same innate human need to believe more than one can “prove.” Otherwise we would live in a cognitive desert, unable to furnish our minds with enough perceptions and ideas to begin thinking. Religious believing thus shares the larger epistemic situation of all human believing.

The argument by many atheists is that religion is based on feelings and not founded on facts, that religion cannot be proven.  Smith succinctly points out, however, that in the most exact sense, all human knowledge is built on believing.  At the end of the day, Atheists have no ultimate foundation for knowing.  Secularists believe that there exists a foundation for their positions (logic, objectivism, naturalism, etc…), but the key here is the word “believe.”  There is no way to prove their foundations, all of their knowledge is built upon belief.

Smith’s point is that the secularist is in the same boat as the adherent of religion, their knowledge is based upon their beliefs.  However, from a Christian standpoint, that is not completely true.  Plantinga has argued that God should be the foundation for belief.  God has revealed himself, and because of God’s revelation, we have a foundation to build upon.  Sure, belief is still necessary, but it is certainly not a blind faith, it is a belief built upon evidence of God’s existence and his revealed will.

Christians must reject the world’s lies that secularism is founded upon reason and Christianity upon faith.  Belief in subatomic particles (science) is no more reasonable than belief in God (religion).  Augustine argued that we must believe in order to understand, but he never argued that understanding was not possible.  Belief and understanding are only possible because the Christian faith has God as its ultimate foundation.

The Wall Street Journal weighs in on why even feminists should be opposed to skimpy clothes for teenage girls.

All of which brings me to a question: Why do so many of us not only permit our teenage daughters to dress like this—like prostitutes, if we’re being honest with ourselves—but pay for them to do it with our AmEx cards?

Kirk Cameron recently found himself in a media firestorm for affirming biblical teaching on homosexuality. Denny Burk has an interesting take.

Our culture is not threatened by those who abandon the Christian faith, but by those who uphold it. It is not newsworthy that liberal mainline churches have abandoned Christianity’s 2,000-year-old sexual ethic or that Roman Catholic politicians routinely take stands that contradict their church’s teaching. What is newsworthy is that there are still some Christians who will not change their beliefs in order to accommodate the ever-shifting sexual mores of the prevailing culture.

Albert Mohler’s 2012 Book Recommendations for Preachers.

How an Affair Begins.  You should read this.

At some point in the conversation, the man made the comment that his wife doesn’t let him go on and on like that about his hobbies. That’s when my friend felt a curious check in her spirit. As she drove home, she thought with a shudder how she had enjoyed the flattery of being told she is a superior listener.

That was a narrow escape.

The Christ who will not worship Satan to gain the world’s kingdoms is followed by Christians who will worship only Christ in unity with the Lord whom he serves.  And this is intolerable to all defenders of society whoa re content that many gods should be worshipped if only Democracy or America, or German, or the Empire receives its due, religious homage.  The antagonism of modern, tolerant culture to Christ is of course often disguised because it does not call its religious practices religious, reserving that term for certain specified rites connected with officially recognized sacred institutions; and also because it regards what it calls religion as one of many interests which can be placed alongside economics, art, science, politics, and techniques.  Hence the objection it voices to Christian monotheism appears in such injunctions only as that religion should be kept out of politics and business, or that christian faith must learn to get along with other religions.  What is often meant is that not only the claims of religious groups but all consideration of the claims of Christ and God should be banished from the spheres where other gods, called values, reign.  The implied charge against Christian faith is like the ancient one: it imperils society by its attack on its religious life; it deprives social institution of their cultic, sacred character; by its refusal to condone the pious superstitions of tolerant polytheism it threatens social unity.

–H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture

I was recently given a copy of Ed and Lisa Young’s book, Sexperiment.  I’ve only thumbed through it a bit, but so far its what you’d expect from a book with that title.  It’s their attempt at making marriages healthier by encouraging more sex and intimacy.  Of course, sex isn’t the only thing discussed in the book and Young is quick to point out that Christ should occupy the foundational role in any marriage (pg. 9).

However, I’m concerned that in the evangelical culture we have recently begun to overemphasize the role of sex in marriage.  Now, I’m the first to admit that a healthy sex life is important in a healthy marriage.  Further, I do agree that often times, sex has been demonized within the church and that there needs to be a healthy, biblical understanding of sex.  However, if one considers the current landscape of sermons and books available on sex, a person could be led to believe that the Bible is filled to the brim with references to sex.  This simply is not the case.  When one considers just how little time the scripture gives to sex and just how little time sex occupies in the overall picture of marriage, it becomes difficult to justify all of the sexualization going on within the evangelical church.

As I said earlier, I’ve not read all of Young’s book (I’m not sure I will) and my goal here is not to demonize Ed Young or Mark Driscoll (Real Marriage, The Peasant Princess) or anyone else.  In fact, Danny Akin has even commended Driscoll for answering some of the tough questions regarding sex.

My concern, instead, is that we as evangelicals may be guilty of the same oversexualization that we see in our secular culture.  Evangelicals have figured out what others have known for years…sex sells.  Christ may be the foundation for marriage, but A Christ Centered Marriage doesn’t market as easily as Sexperiement or Intended for Pleasure.  There is certainly value in working to correct our culture’s misunderstanding of sex, but part of our efforts must surely focus on correcting our culture’s fascination and addiction to sex.

We may do well to adopt some of C.S. Lewis’ perspective on sex.  In Mere Christianity  he writes,

They tell you sex has become a mess because it was hushed up.  But for the last twenty years it has not been.  It has been chattered about all day long. yet, it is still in a mess…If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once.  But, of course, when people say, ‘Sex is nothing to be ashamed of,’ they may mean ‘the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be ashamed of.’

If they mean that, I think they are wrong.  I thing it is everything to be ashamed of.  There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives.

Lewis goes on to argue that chastity and sexual morality are not easy, but they are possible and right.  He urges Christians to view sex as a gift from God, one to be enjoyed, but not one to be flaunted.  Sex is normal and healthy, but it must never become primary.

As we contend for the absolute value of Christ over and above all things, we must affirm that Christ is the centerpiece in marriage as well. Sex is certainly important, but marriage is about much more than sex. Let us all be careful that as we seek to correct misunderstandings about sex we are primarily concerned with offering gospel centered marriages and lives and not merely capitalizing on our culture’s preoccupation with sex.

Believe it or not, the Bible never condemns anyone for being wealthy.  In fact, in the Old Testament, many people perceived wealth as a sign of God’s blessings.  Jesus doesn’t condemn the wealthy either, in fact he was supported by the wealth as was Paul, and he even encouraged his disciples, “I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings” (Luke 16:9).  His intention, use money for good purposes.  Redeem the use of money.

Nevertheless, the Bible is not without its warnings concerning money.  Paul famously wrote that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven (Matthew 19:14) and warned that we cannot serve both God and money (Matthew 6:24).  But, again, even with all of its warnings, the Bible doesn’t condemn wealth.

What then does the Bible condemn?  In a word, materialism.  The issue of money has to do primarily with the first of the ten commandments.  “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3).  The question we must wrestle with is whether our money controls us or we control it for the glory of God.  Is money the ends to our means, or a means to an end.  Is it a tool in our arsenal for serving the Lord or is it a safety net for our lives?

I’m preaching on the Rich Fool in Luke 12:13-21 this Sunday.  His great sin was not that he was wealthy or that the land produced greatly for him.  Instead, his great sin was that he saw his wealth, not as an opportunity to love God and others, but as an opportunity to serve himself.  The blessings of God did not drive him to serve God, but instead to grow more selfish.

Materialism is a terrible evil, and one that we as Americans must battle.  But it is not only a wealthy American concern.  We can trust in things more than Jesus whether we have a lot or a little.  Do you serve him, do you treasure him, or are you controlled by your possessions.  Its an irony that the things we have often possess us more than we possess them, and it is a sad situation when we consider our own wants and desires long before we consider bringing glory to our God and alleviating the suffering of our neighbors.  Money is not evil, it is amoral, but it can become a god.  Seek him first, honor him with your life and your possessions.

A great resource on this issue: Randy Alcorn, Money, Possessions, and Eternity.