Stage 5 – Message Purpose

97 Luther Thoughts for Preachers – Part 10

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

97LutherLuther was trying to provoke conversation, so these are only provocative thoughts. At the same time, let’s not just explain it away and end up without being challenged. Take the next few, for example:

(81)-82. Not only are the religious ceremonials not the good law and the precepts in which one does not live (in opposition to many teachers);
83. But even the Decalogue itself and all that can be taught and prescribed inwardly and outwardly is not good law either.

Before we get too upset, let’s add another to the mix:

84. The good law and that in which one lives is the love of God, spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

Looks like Luther is back to his Augustine-influenced thinking, but is it biblical? Would the apostle Paul teach the constraining influence of the love of God in Christ, communicated by the Spirit, so that the Christian life is lived not by the effort of the flesh but by faith in Christ? Absolutely.

85. Anyone’s will would prefer, if it were possible, that there would be no law and to be entirely free.
86. Anyone’s will hates it that the law should be imposed upon it; if, however, the will desires imposition of the law it does so out of love of self.

The sinner’s desire is freedom from constraint, but what about those who seem to like law? Is this a sort of natural godliness? Luther underlines the gravitational pull of self-love on the heart, a love that can manifest in rebellion and in religiosity.

(87-89.) The law is good, and the will is hostile to it and therefore not good. In order for the law to be reconciled with the human will, there needs to be the mediating work of the grace of God to bring the two together. The law does not lead the will to grace, but grace brings the will and law together.

(90-91.) The human cannot love God unless God first gives his grace. That grace is not given to increase good deeds, but because without the grace of God there will never be any good deed, never any act of true love.

(92.) If a person can love naturally without the love of God, then the love of God is superfluous and unnecessary.

Next time we will be able to finish the 97 and wrap up the series of thought provoking theses.  As preachers these theses really poke at the very core of what it is to be human, and consequently, what we are engaging as we prepare and preach.

97 Luther Thoughts for Preachers – Part 8

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

97LutherContinuing my preacher’s journey through Luther’s lesser known 97 theses:

68. Therefore it is impossible to fulfill the law in any way without the grace of God.

The gravitational pull of a post Genesis 3 world will always pull us toward a morality that is bereft of the presence of God. This is the tendency we have: to try to be like God, apart from God. Let’s never settle for obedient compliance over genuine relationship with God by His Spirit.

69. As a matter of fact, it is more accurate to say that the law is destroyed by nature without the grace of God.
70. A good law will of necessity be bad for the natural will.
71. Law and will are two implacable foes without the grace of God.

I want to leave these theses rather than summarizing them. As a human being I am naturally in total opposition to God being God. Telling me to behave by his rules will only incite rebellion, or . . .

72. What the law wants, the will never wants, unless it pretends to want it out of fear or love.

Unless the person is fearfully self-protective, or loving self in some way. Thus the written code will gain a variety of responses, from younger brother rebellion to older brother self-righteousness, but nothing on this continuum is actually a good result. Seems hopeless?

73. The law, as taskmaster of the will, will not be overcome except by the “child, who has been born to us” [Isa. 9:6].

Our only hope is Christ himself. Apart from him we are deeply in trouble with a terrible foe. So as a preacher? I must, must, must preach Christ – the only hope. But if I reduce Christ and start to preach law in some way, the result will not be greater godliness.

74. The law makes sin abound because it irritates and repels the will [Rom. 7:13].
75. The grace of God, however, makes justice abound through Jesus Christ because it causes one to be pleased with the law.

Only the grace of God can create a new taste, a new inner relish…hang on, I am drifting into Jonathan Edwards now. God can do what the law never could, stirring the heart with a new appetite for good.

97 Luther Thoughts for Preachers – Part 7

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

97LutherWe are moving into the sixties, at least in respect to Luther’s 97:

54-59   – Luther pursued the issue of the grace of God, not as a character quality, but as a spiritual presence.  Either we are self-determined individuals, or we function by the presence or absence of grace.  It is too easy, and natural, for us to preach the Bible in such a way as to make demands of listeners that pressure them to perform.  In preaching moralistically we deny the very core of the gospel itself.

(60-)62. And that therefore he who is outside the grace of God sins incessantly, even when he does not kill, commit adultery, or become angry.

Luther takes aim again at the desire to combine law and grace.  That is our human default so we need to think before dismissing him here.  Outside the grace of God we sin incessantly?  What about my upstanding neighbour?  While there are some non-Christians that have better morals than some who identify themselves with Christ, this is not the point.  Apart from me you can do nothing.  We have to watch our tendency to equate external morality with spirituality.

63. But it follows that he sins because he does not spiritually fulfill the law.

So someone may do the right thing, but not from the heart, not spiritually.  Preachers will always be tempted to preach toward the shortcut of behavioural compliance.  It is not a shortcut to anywhere good.

64. Spiritually that person does not kill, does not do evil, does not become enraged when he neither becomes angry nor lusts.

Luther is one of those people in church history who views the affections as the source of action.  If you chase others who thought the same, you end up with quite a hall of fame!

(65)-66 It is the righteousness of the hypocrite actually and outwardly not to kill, do evil, etc.

Choosing to not “do” a sin can be an expression of corrupt affections.  This is a warning to us preachers who might be tempted to settle for a compliant congregation who do not do wrong.  It is possible to fill a church with people who do the right thing, but do so from a hypocritical heart.  Is that the legacy we want?

67. It is by the grace of God that one does not lust or become enraged.

Hence we must preach Christ and him crucified, not moral codes and humans pressurized.

97 Luther Thoughts for Preachers – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

97LutherIf you want to see Luther’s lesser known list of theses, click here.  Let’s keep pondering their value for us as preachers:

Theses 13-15 – Luther goes on to underline the propensity to evil found in natural condition humanity.  He even questions whether genuine love is possible, certainly with respect to God.  So the will is free only in the sense that it will conform to erroneous and incorrect teaching.  Within that realm, the will appears free because the dictator within lives in that darkness.  How often do preachers pile on the pressure when the listeners are incapable of responding with better morality – they may shift their actions, but will continue to be in that earthly realm that is totally other than God’s goodness.

16. One ought rather to conclude: since erring man is able to love the creature it is impossible for him to love God.

While we may not be familiar with the juxtaposition Luther gives here, it shouldn’t be unfamiliar to us.  Think of Jesus’ words, that it is not possible to serve two masters, you will either love one and hate the other, or serve the one and despise the other.  Perhaps we need to ponder the mutual exclusivity of affection when we preach to people (since our tendency is to be “both/and” in our thinking).

17. Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.

I hope you didn’t leave before this one!  This is vitally important.  Humans do not want God to be God, but we consistently vote for another candidate – ourselves.  The influence of the Lie in Genesis 3 is so pervasive we can easily miss it, like the water the goldfish is swimming in.  So as preachers, are we trying to encourage morality and goodness without addressing the real issue?  I can convince people to help older folk across the road, but superficial morality in no way addresses the core “me for president of the universe” political inclination of the human heart (and we all know presidential candidates like to be seen to do good!)

18. To love God above all things by nature is a fictitious term, a chimera, as it were. This is contrary to common teaching.

So the great commandment is impossible for a fallen humanity.  People will not love God, so what do we do?  Do we command it?  Or do we prayerfully present the self-revelation of God’s heart in His Word, pointing to the Word incarnate, and invite people to look to Him?  More on this to come . . .

97 Luther Thoughts for Preachers – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

97LutherContinuing my pondering of Luther’s less famous 97 Theses and what difference they might make to our preaching:

5. It is false to state that man’s inclination is free to choose between either of two opposites. Indeed, the inclination is not free, but captive. This is said in opposition to common opinion.

Everyone assumes they are self-moved and free to choose in any situation.  Luther argues that this is not the case.  The will is not free, but captive.  So as a preacher, I need to ponder deeply what the state of the human will actually is.  If it is free then that will result in one approach to ministry.  If it is not free, then that will result in another approach.  As humans, we make choices all the time.  We can call that liberty of choice.  But those choices are not made by a free will, but by a will held captive.

6. It is false to state that the will can by nature conform to correct precept. This is said in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.

Luther reinforces the point by denying that human wills will obey clear and compelling application by their own nature.  So when we preach, are we indulging in an exercise to convince people to move themselves to what is right?  Luther says no.

Theses 7-9 – The will may be neutral in itself, but it is captive to a non-neutral dictator.  God’s grace is needed so that the will can do anything other than always choose evil.  When we preach, we aren’t speaking to neutral folk, but to a captive set of wills.  Lest you assume some sort of heavenly puppeteering here, let me tip you off that Luther is not saying the will is captive to God’s direct control.

Theses 10-12 – Just because we proclaim that something is good does not mean that people will strive in that direction.  It would be good to ask Luther what he thinks of moralistic preaching, for instance.  Is our role as preachers to call everyone to live in a godly way?  Seems slightly misdirected if no natural will is able or free to strive toward what we declare to be good.

97 Luther Thoughts for Preachers

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

97LutherMartin Luther is famous for his 95 theses against Indulgences, which he nailed to the door in Wittenberg on the 31st of October 1517.  His less well-known 97 Theses were posted a few weeks earlier.  Later, when the eyes of the church world were on him, he looked back beyond the 95 Theses and went back to the issues raised in the 97 Theses to make his defense.

Every time I look at the 97, I am struck by how on target Luther was about some very foundational issues.  So I have pondered blogging through them for the sake of preachers today.  I won’t go at a rate of one per post, but rather will summarise where the content feels too distant and requires too much explanation (you can see the full list here), then state specific theses and converse with them from the perspective of preaching today.

The 97 Theses Against Scholastic Theology.  Luther pulls no punches in his critique of the prevailing theological training of his day.  Get foundational theological questions wrong and everything else will follow.  As a preacher I am struck by that reality today.  Good Bible interpretation, explanation and application built on flawed assumptions will make for potentially unhelpful or even harmful preaching.

Theses 1-3 – Luther launches by affirming the widely respected Augustine as over against Pelagius, the heretic, who denied the full impact of original sin and asserted that humans have the ability to be righteous by the exercise of their free will.  How humans operate is a critical issue for preachers and one we must ponder deeply.

4. It is therefore true that man, being a bad tree, can only will and do evil [Cf. Matt. 7:17–18].

As preachers we have to grasp the depth of the human sin problem before we can hope to offer any sort of solution.  Do we really get how pervasive sin is and how fruitless the human life is “by nature?”  I tend to think of the story of the Lost Sons to illustrate this . . . both sons were lost, but their sin manifested with different fruit.  One bore the red apple of riotous living.  The other bore the green apple of self-righteous living.  Both were 100% wrong in their response to a loving Father.  Too often we see sin on the standard sliding scales and therefore evaluate who is more of a sinner versus who is less of a sinner.

But if we preach only a shallow view of sin, we will be affirming a lot of “older brothers” who need to see the bad news of their situation too.

Don’t Stain Glass the Bible Folks

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

StainedGlassLots of Christians have a habit of “stained glassing” Bible characters.  Sometimes it seems like pretty much anyone other than Jezebel and Judas Iscariot will get a free pass and find their actions vindicated by believers.

Why does this happen?  Perhaps it is the result of Sunday School training that can sometimes turn the biblical narrative into myth-like stories with morales based primarily on character behaviour.  Perhaps it comes from too easily assuming that faith in God is a binary reality whereby any faith in an individual equates to full faithfulness, rather than recognising that God patiently works with people who are in the process of learning to trust Him rather than themselves.  Perhaps we are just nice people who assume almost everyone in the Bible is a nice person too (i.e. you have to be overtly evil to be anything other than laudable).  Perhaps it comes from forgetting that the primary character to focus on in the Bible is God, rather than the people, so that the people become models for our actions where perhaps they shouldn’t.

So where does this happen in the canon?  There are countless examples, but let me prod our thoughts with a few characters that tend to get “stain glassed.”

The Patriarchs – Abraham responds to a call from God, but when does he really trust God’s promise?  Sure, he moves with his family a long distance, but it is only after he separates from his family that God follows up with him.  Then it is another while before Abraham seems to finally trust God’s promise about his seed.  So between his initial call and his being declared righteous by faith there is the bizarre incident with giving his wife away in Egypt.  Abraham is on a journey, a faith journey.  And if we try to sanctify his decisions and affirm it all, then we may upset the wives in our congregation, and misrepresent the text.

Other OT Characters – Ruth was amazingly godly, but was Naomi acting by faith when she setup a very compromised situation?  Do we want to affirm everything about Mordecai and Esther?  Heroic and courageous?  Certainly.  But deeply faithful?  Worth pondering.  Nehemiah always gets lauded as the ultimate leader, but what legacy did he leave in respect to the hearts of the people, as well as the building project?  Was Jonah just reluctant, or was there a heart issue with him, in contrast to the character of the God he ended up somewhat representing?

Disciples – This is an interesting category.  Perhaps it is an anti-category.  That is, often I hear the disciples being treated like dunces when we treat them as if they should have fully grasped the content of all four gospels before the gospels were even written!

The Bible is full of real people with real issues and real messy mixed up faith responses, and for that we should be profoundly thankful.

Courage and Preaching Tone

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

ToneHead2This series of posts has pondered the issue of preaching tone.  I’ve suggested we should understand the tone of a text and consider carefully the tone of the message.  Communication between people is rarely, if ever, purely informational.  Communication from God is never dispassionate.  He cares about people who will listen to our preaching.  So as well as considering the tone of the text, the situation of the listeners, and the tendencies of ourselves as preachers, we also need to pursue God’s heart in respect to the sermon.  What does God want to happen?  What tone would reflect his concern for the situation?

So to finish, let me highlight a danger and then two things to pray . . .

Danger: Considering the tone of a presentation is vitally important, but it does open up the dangerous possibility of inauthenticity.  If I am going to say something important to my wife, I would be foolish to not consider how the tone will come across.  But once I start thinking about tone, there is always the danger of faking something and launching into a performance.  When it comes to preaching, a performance never represents God well because God does not pretend.  God does not fake emotion.  When God speaks, God speaks with pure and authentic passion.  If we pursue “effective preaching” by looking at matters of tone, then we are in danger of inauthenticity unless we are gripped by the conviction that we must represent God not only in what we say, but by our character as we speak.  Though flawed and broken, somehow we get to speak for God.  Ambassadors.  We represent.  This kind of danger demands that we be prayerful about the privilege of preaching.

Prayer Point 1: Discernment.  Pray for God to give you discernment.  To be able to discern the intent of the biblical author and the need of your listeners.  And to be able to discern God’s heart for them, as well as God’s perspective on you.  Instead of asking God to be able to discern the state of your own heart as you approach a preaching engagement, better to ask him to do the searching and trying and weighing and to lead you into a place where you can preach in a way that represents his heart most effectively.

Prayer Point 2: Courage.  It is much safer and easier to preach dispassionately as if preaching were mere presentation of material.  Arms length.  Uninvolved.  But preaching calls on us to love people enough to be real with them.  It calls us to preach as one who represents Christ the Word of God.  Just as Christ was not universally loved by the lost and by the religious, so we might find our hearts trampled as we give ourselves away in preaching ministry.  That takes courage.  Pray for it, because the Lord knows what its like to represent the Father well and to suffer as a result.

Preaching and the Tone of the Message

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

ToneHead2So assuming we agree that the tone matters, how are we to arrive at the tone of a message?  Three steps are needed here:

1. Consider the tone of the text.

As we develop sensitivity to the text and the setting of the text, we should be increasingly effective at grasping the tone of the author.  We need to go for a humble confidence rather than a brash confidence in this.  We are looking at lots of factors and weighing them up.

2. Consider the listeners to the message.

Who are you preaching to, and what is the occasion of the sermon?  Sometimes the occasion will influence the tone significantly (i.e. a funeral), sometimes it will be less significant.  It is not enough, though, to figure out the tone of the text and replicate that.  That text needs to be preached with sensitivity to these listeners.

3. Consider yourself as a preacher.

What is your natural or default tone?  Do you have a theological bias?  For instance, do you see everything as duty and expectation?  Do you see everything as gentle and joyful?  Do you turn any passage into a guilt trip?  The better you know yourself, the better you will be at selecting tone on purpose rather than defaulting into a tone that is less than helpful.

When you have evaluated all these factors, then there is still a bit more to consider.  Next time I’ll blog about the dangers and the needs as we think about preaching tone.