I pray earnestly that God will raise up today a new generation of Christian apologists or Christian communicators, who will combine an absolute loyalty to the biblical gospel and an unwavering confidence in the power of the Spirit with a deep and sensitive understanding of the contemporary alternatives to the gospel; who will relate the one to the other with freshness, authority, and relevance; and who will use their minds to reach other minds for Christ.Amen and Amen!
Some interesting comments on the use of communication technology:
We mentioned the apostle John’s view of technology found in 2 John 12, where he wrote, “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”
John was comfortable using the communication technology—pen and ink—of his day, but he did so with a set of values that were contrary to the tendencies built into the technology of writing. Whereas a letter requires that one isolated person write a message and then another isolated person later read that message, John says that his joy is never complete until he is physically present with his community.And yet, aware of this problem, John used writing because he understood both its helpfulness and its problematic value system. From that perspective he was able to use technology in service of the embodied communal life that Christ taught him. When John could not be physically present with his community, he was comfortable using technology to communicate with them. But he was always careful to state that he considered technologically mediated relationships to be inferior to embodied relationships.
"Social media has weighted these "conversations" against the local and in favor of the "digital." In other words, a lot of digital voices talking among themselves, agreeing and disagreeing, having their weighty say, while down at the street-level there's relative silence. So it seems to me.That's what church fellowship should be like, or at least include - a place and atmosphere where people can actually talk to each other openly, and not via text messaging or twittter feed. I can't survive without it, and I bet you can't either.
Just musing here, but what if we all just, well, shut up. I mean, we don't really need more books, do we? More and more and more every year? We don't need more marketing? We don't need more promises . . . if you'll only attend the conference, buy the book, sign up for the daily edevotional. What maybe we need is "faith working through love," (Gal. 5:6) which happens relationally, locally, after we put down the book, look up from the smart phone, close the lap top, and actually talk to the person next to us."
"...to communicate a content-rich message in a compassion-saturated relationship. "O Lord, teach us and form us to do this, to be like this, to live this!
(Dane Ortlund, quoting Randy Newman, at Strawberry-Rhubarb Theology)
Amen, Dr. Packer, Amen!"First, with his flair for didactic communication he coined some new and pointed ways of expressing old thoughts (the “true truth” or revelation, the “mannishness” of human beings, the “upper story” and “lower story” of the divided Western mind, etc.).
Second, with his gift of empathy he listened to and dialogued with the modern secular world as it expressed itself in literature and art, which most evangelicals were too cocooned in their own subculture to do.
Third, he threw light on the things that today’s secularists take for granted by tracing them, however sketchily, to their source in the history of thought, a task for which few evangelicals outside the seminaries had the skill.
Fourth, he cherished a vivid sense of the ongoing historical process of which we are all part, and offered shrewd analysis of the Megatrends-Future Shock type concerning the likely effect of current Christian and secular developments.
Fifth, he felt, focused, and dwelt on the dignity and tragedy of sinful human beings rather than their grossness and nastiness.
Sixth, he linked the passion for orthodoxy with a life of love to others as the necessary expression of gospel truth, and censured the all-too-common unlovingness of front-line fighters for that truth, including the Presbyterian separatists with whom in the thirties he had thrown in his lot.
Seventh, he celebrated the wholeness of created reality under God, and stressed that the Christian life must be a corresponding whole—that is, a life in which truth, goodness, and beauty are valued together and sought with equal zeal. Having these emphases institutionally incarnated at L’Abri, his ministry understandably attracted attention. For it was intrinsically masterful, and it was also badly needed."
The Gospel Isn’t Religious Performance
The Gospel isn’t about religious performance to prove yourself to God, others, or yourself.
We don’t have to impress [God] because Jesus impressed him for us.
We don’t’ have to seek approval from [Others] because are approved by faith in Christ.
We don’t have to perfect [Ourselves] because we are imperfect people clinging to a perfect Christ.
The Gospel Isn’t Spiritual License
The Gospel also isn’t spiritual license to flaunt your “freedom” in Christ.
The Gospel calls us to respond to Jesus in every situation—social, cultural, personal. We are his people not our own. We drive under his license.
The Gospel isn’t an obstacle to our happiness but the path to true happiness. Christ offers deeper joy than anything else can offer.
The Gospel calls us to holiness not legalism, to flaunt Christ not false freedom. Jesus calls us to be distinct not relevant as we orbit around him, not rules or liberties.Well said!
Love these profound words on communication and "speaking the truth in love" from Steve Murrell at the reluctant leader:"Relationships are bridges. Truth is weighty.Or, as someone once told me, you can't drive a 20 ton truck of truth over a relationship bridge rated for only 10 tons.
The heaver the truth, the stronger the bridge (relationship) must be to transport the truth without a crash.
If the truth is heavy and the bridge is weak, we might need to spend some time strengthening the bridge before we try to transport some heavy truth across it.
Are your relational bridges strong enough to really speak the truth?
Are you building the kind of relationships that can handle the truth?"
#1. The Slow Death of a Large Number of Blogs...He then concludes:
#2. The Turn to Other Social Media for Connection...
#3. The Solidifying Reading Patterns of Blog Readers
#4. The Difficulty of Beginning a Successful Blog without an Already-Existing Platform...
#5. The Building of Blog Congregations at the Expense of Blog Conversation...
Where to Now? Where will blogging go in the 2010’s? I’m not sure. I suspect that the initial stage of the blog wave is over. What we are seeing now is the maturation of the blogosphere, as blogging continues to take on characteristics of traditional media, while leaving the door cracked open for newcomers to make their voices heard.Follow the link for more explanation and details. If you are either a blogger or an avid reader of blogs, it will be worth your while.
Is it possible for a preacher to be both relevant and accurate? J. D. Greear wonders and comments at www.jdgreear.com:I enjoy listening to the guy who is creative in how he packages and presents his messages. I also enjoy the guy who really knows how to do "exegesis," i.e., can get into a passage, walk me through it, unpack it carefully, and make me feel, when he's done, like I really understand that passage much better than I did before.
Unfortunately those two guys are rarely the same person.
Some preachers astound me with their creative ability to perceive spiritual questions people are really interested in, apply biblical principles to their lives, and package their teaching in ways that capture the attention. Often, however, I feel like they are not letting the Bible drive their content--their messages are more driven by their experiences and creative genius. I also feel like if I sat under their preaching for a while that I would not really be getting the full scope of what God has left for me to know in the Bible. And rarely do I feel like I understand passages of Scripture much better as a result of their preaching.
Other guys astound me with their ability to perceive what a text is saying and unpack it. However, quite often they bore me, and fail to make me see how a particular passage is absolutely essential for my life. They are usually only decent in application; they almost always suck in introduction and approach; they don't package in a way that captures my attention. Quite often they ramble on way too long in too many scattered directions (usually, they excuse this by saying they are just going wherever the text itself goes).
I think both elements, careful exegesis and creativity, are absolutely necessary. ...
After some further comments he concludes:
Weighting yourself too heavily toward exegesis or creativity are both lazy approaches. The first fails to connect; the second fails to be faithful to God's calling. As a teacher of God's word, I am called to do both: to be faithful and connect. I am not called to simply expound a book; I am called to expound it to people.
Sure, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd much rather choose to be faithful to the text... but I do not have to choose.
What makes a Christian crusty? A number of things. For starters, it’s an attitude. It’s a demeanor where being Calvinist or paedobaptist or inerrantist (three things I am gladly) are put on like armor or wielded like weapons, when they are meant to be the warm glow of a Christian whose core radiates with love for Christ and the gospel. I believe in theological distinctives–I believe in them and I believe it is good to have them–but if the distinctives are not manifestly the flower of gospel root, the buds aren’t worth the blooming.
A second mark of crusty Christians is approachability, as in, not having any. There is a sizing up-ness that makes some theological types unnecessarily prickly. They are bright and opinionated and quickly analytical. As a result, knowingly or unknowingly, they emit a vibe which communicates something between “You Max Lucado reading moron!” and “I wish R.C. Sproul were here to teach you a thing or two!” Crusty Christians are hard to be around. They are intimidating instead of engaging and growling instead of gracious. They are too willing to share their opinions on everything and unable to put any doctrine in any category not marked “absolutely essential.”
When theology is more crust than core, it’s not so much that we care about good theology too much, we just don’t care about some other hugely important things in the same proportion. So we end up largely skeptical of a prayerful, fruitful, warm-hearted, godly, Arminian leaning pastor. Now, I might think such a pastor is prayerful, fruitful, warm-hearted and godly despite too much emphasis on libertarian free will, but I sure hope to be mighty thankful for all his prayerfulness, fruitfulness, and warm-hearted godliness. Some Christians allow evangelism to trump all other considerations, others size up fellow Christians by their attention to social justice concerns, but a lot of us do our judging with theology. If the theology fits, the lack of mission, prayer, and compassion doesn’t matter much. But if a few theological pieces are misplaced in the puzzle, see you later and don’t let Hymenaeus and Philetus door hit you on the way out.
Striking the balance is not easy. But let’s try hard to be discerning and grounded without always looking for the next theological misstep in our friends, our family, or the songs we sing. And let’s be able to tell the difference between wandering sheep and false teachers. We must delineate between a slightly ill-informed wording of a phrase and a purposeful rejection of truth. We must pursue a passion for fidelity to Scripture and a winsomeness that sweetens the already honey-like drippings of the word of God. Let us be more like a chocolate covered raisin, likeable on the outside and surprisingly good for you on the inside, and less like a tootsie roll pop with its brittle, crunchy exterior that must be broken through before anyone can get to the good stuff. Our theological heart, if it is worth anything, will pulse throughout our spiritual bodies, making us into someone more prayerful, more godly, and more passionate about the Bible, the lost, and the world around us. We will be theologically solid to the core, without the unnecessary crust.
Saw this question from Derek Thomas at Pure Church: Make It Plain Preacher!Which of these two statements do preachers most like to hear: a) "I didn't understand much of what you said, but I love to hear you preach," or "You know, when I hear you preach I say to myself, 'I could have seen that in the text"?
It’s important to remember that enjoying obtuse vocabulary rarely translates into the ability to use it without seeming like a bloviating pontificator
Here's some interesting news: Fuller Theological Seminary To Offer Course In Tap DancingFuller Theological Seminary announced today that a course in tap dancing will be added to the curriculum of their Master of Divinity program this spring. Don Ohlson, a spokesperson for Fuller, explained the reason behind the new addition: “We believe that in this postmodern climate of tolerance and political civility it is important to train our future pastors to be able to dance around biblical issues when necessary.”...After a little discussion about Rick Warren's need for this training, the article goes on to say:
The new Fuller class, Pastoral Tap Dance, will be held off-campus at Little Miss Starlet Dance Academy and Tanning Salon, with instruction by former Rockette,It's a joke, people. Lighten Up!
Tammi Lynn Marple. Marple, who has taught the academy’s “Beginning Tap for our
Year Olds and Up” class for twenty years, suggests that the Fuller seminary students who enroll should bring a juice box for break time and have their mommies or daddies drop them off five minutes early so they have time to warm up.
