The Fallen Condition Focus

“The Fallen Condition Focus And The Purpose Of The Sermon” by Bryan Chapell; Chancellor and Professor of Preaching at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. From Preaching.com; the online publication of Preaching magazine. Available at http://www.preaching.com/printerfriendly/11550666

     Dr Chapell’s article focuses on what he refers to as the Fallen Condition Focus (FCF) in preaching. In short; Chapell believes what the sermon is to focus on is what the text of Scripture is saying to the original recipients, and how that original context is now applicable to a modern hearer.

    

     Chapell begins by asking the questions of where, to whom, and why was the original manuscripts written. By answering these questions at the outset, one can exegete the passage in such a way as to help focus on the ramification to the original audience, and allow Holy Spirit guided direction to make a connection with his own flock in today’s culture.

     Until the preacher is aware of why the passage was written, he will fail to connect to the true content of the original author’s message. It is very interesting that Chapell chooses to use the word “guess” in his article. To borrow a phrase from Tony Guthrie, Professor of Preaching at Luther Rice Seminary, we do not have to use “guessegeses” in our study. God has made His purposes clear in the text, if we will use the Fallen Condition Focus as a methodology for determining that purpose. Chapell defines the concept of a Fallen Condition Focus as, “the mutual human condition that contemporary believers share with those for or by whom the text was written that requires the grace of the passage to manifest God's glory in his people.” In other words, no text of Scripture was written solely for the purposes of the past hearers, but for the needs and sanctification of any listener in any age. Or, put another way, the Fallen Condition Focus is the intention of the Holy Spirit to provide inspired and authoritative Scripture for each age of the church.

     Therefore, Chapell argues that if we do not find the Fallen Condition Focus of the passage, we will not have a true understanding of the passage, even if we can diagram the Greek, or parse the Hebrew, or know many interesting facts about the jewels on the High Priest’s breastplate. These linguistic skills and interesting facts will become secondary when we deliver the Holy Spirit's true intention for inspiring the autographs and His true intention for the modern audience to hear the message He intended.

     As Chapell puts it, a sermon on “prayerless patterns in society” is much less interesting than a sermon on "why we struggle to pray when family stresses make prayer most necessary”—a sermon that this reviewer would love to hear. The generic, bland message gives the audience little reason to tune in. However; specificity tends to breed interest in the subject matter. Chapell lists the following three questions as foundational in determining the Fallen Condition Focus:

1. What does the text say?

2. What concern(s) did the text address (in its context)?

3. What do listeners spiritually share in common with those for (or about) whom it was written or the one by whom it was written?

Answering these three questions will guide the preacher to answer the most important question of the Fallen Condition Focus: “So what?” If the audience sits with crossed arms and scowling faces asking at the end of the message, “So what?” then the preacher has failed to convey the message of the Scripture. They might be able to recite the treasures that Achan stole from Jericho; but “so what?” Does that knowledge affect their Monday reality of a doctor’s appointment? Most likely it does not.

     The article itself was well written in every way. As stated previously, it was very similar to the Homiletical Bridge concept. It was written with just a touch of humor that helped keep it attentive, and was very practice in both application and approach. While not as academic it certainly was helpful in gathering an understanding of preaching from the standpoint of a Christocentric rather than anthropocentric view. Chapell’s Fallen Condition Focus is a wonderful tool that should be readily added to myany pastoral toolbox.

Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Theological Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction and

Preliminary Evaluation. By Gregg R. Allison; Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From The Southern Baptist Journal Of Theology, Volume 14.2 (2010)Available at http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/08/sbjt_v14_n2_allison_only.pdf

     Dr Allison’s article focuses on a new brand of theological interpretation and exegesis knows as Theological Interpretation of Scripture, also known as TIS. This relatively new thinking is propagated by the likes of Joel Green, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stephen Fowler. The focus of TIS is a system of types of theological understandings of Scripture that are based primarily on the simple reading of the Bible without the subconscious, (or possibly the conscious) preconceived understanding brought in by the reader. In-other-words, the interpreter does not bring their own confessional, theological, and/or doctrinal baggage along for the exegetical ride.

     The number of “families” (as these systems are called by Allison) can range, but seem at present to be limited to three primary systems. The first of these would be “Textual-theological” interpretations of Scripture, or T-TIS. This system adheres to the belief that the text of Scripture is the driving force in interpretive work. As an example, T-TIS proponents believe that the inspired text (Holy Spirit originated, man authored) is enough to gain a full exegetical conclusion. Everything necessary for salvation, empowerment, doctrinal understanding, etc. can be derived from the text. The message of the text and the narrative, then become secondary to the text itself.

     Similarly, the second “family” is “Message-Theological” interpretations of Scripture, or M-TIS. This system focuses on the over-arching message of Scripture. Namely, that mankind can be redeemed through God’s grace and the penal substitutionary atoning sacrifice of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. In more common vernacular, the Bible “is more about the man of salvation, than the plan of salvation.” The message is the driving force of exegetical work, finding (and perhaps inventing) a Jesus under every rock.

     Thirdly is “Interest-Theological” interpretation of Scripture, or I-TIS. As one could surmise from the name, here the interpreter focuses on the primary interest of doctrine and theological belief. As Fowler states, “Christians have generally read their scripture to guide, correct, and edify their faith, worship, and practice as part of their ongoing struggle to live faithfully” before their God.

     The family of systems certainly bring strong points as well as a fair share of weaknesses to the table. A few of the benefits that can be seen in the system are the faithfulness to the text and the desire (if not always success) to remove preconceived notions and influence outside sources from the interpretive task. The historical point of allowing “Scripture to interpret Scripture” is validated in TIS. By not allowing commentaries, past theological teachings (even from our favorite preachers) and our own first, logical attempt at seeing the meaning we do service to the original authors intent. And is that not the point? In tangent with that idea, the focus is on finding the true exegesis and not (if I am allowed to borrow the phrase)guessegesis of the text. (From "The Homiletical Bridge" by Tony Guthrie, Preaching Professor at Luther Rice Seminary

     A few of the limitations of TIS are spelled out in the article, and include the sheer “newness” of the system. As with any new proposition, critiques and fine tuning will be needed. For all of the focus on the validity of the text, it would seem that some of the proponents of TIS still advocate bringing their pre-TIS beliefs to the text. While I would readily admit that I did not fully comprehend the article's point on I-TIS, it still read as though the thought process is/was “I look to MY interests and bring that out of the text.” As if the theolog involved in the interpretive work would bring his particular fetish for eschatology out of every Danielian nook and Revelatory cranny. This is no better than many/most homiletical systems of sermon building now in use.

     The article itself was well written and thought provoking. I have enjoyed reading Dr Allison’s previous works, including his latest book of Historical Theology. He brings out a sound and scholarly look at this new theological interpretive system and gives a fair and balanced view that most any theologian could appreciate. He unashamedly brings a conservative and evangelical take on the system, warning how it could veer off course in a non-conservative venue. This is to be expected with the source being the SBJT.

Luther’s Understanding of Imputatio

Luther’s Understanding of Imputatio in the Context of his Doctrine of Justification and Its Consequences for the Preaching of the Gospel. By Sibylle Rolf; Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Wissenschaftlich Theological Seminary. From International Journal of Systematic Theology Volume 12 Number 4 October 2010. Available at EBSCO Luther Rice Theological Seminary Library: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=13&sid=065ddfd5-e134-4461-86ee-0c53f92855d8%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rlh&AN=53418801

     Dr Rolf’s article focuses on the idea of imputation as written about and taught by Martin Luther. The article is summarized by viewing how the concept of imputation, in Luther’s teaching, affect the sermon delivery and reception in the hearts of the hearers. The vast majority (two-thirds) of the article focuses on the doctrine and theology that Luther espoused concerning the idea of imputation and justification, with the minority (last one-third) of the article considering the aspect of this theology on the preaching event.

     The article is very academic in its treatment of Luther’s theology, and considering that the take-away is that the article’s author does not share Luther’s reformed view of theology, she gives a fair and well written treatment of his concepts. The article was presented in the International Journal of Systematic Theology in 2010 and was gathered from the Luther Rice Theological Seminary’s EBSCO database.

     While the majority of the article was dedicated to the theology of Luther, the main purpose was the dissemination of that theological concept through the preaching event. If the teachings of the imputation are correct, as this student fully agrees, then how does that concept pass from God to the sinner? According to the author’s understanding of Luther; he would espouse that the hearer “is affected in her heart by listening, is imputed as righteous because whilst listening and being affected by the message, her affections are drawn to God.” (449) In other words, the listening of the Gospel, manifests that individuals desire, as an elect individual, to accept the message of that self same Gospel. The basis of Romans 10:14: “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?”

     Nevertheless; how does this have an effect of transformation? The author writes that it was Luther’s belief in verbum effixac that holds the key. The effectiveness of the preaching lies in the fact that God the Holy Spirit literally presents Himself in the preaching event. When the Gospel preacher preaches the Gospel it becomes a transformative event. In other words, the preaching is not just biographical in nature, which would lead simply to a historical faith, a concept Luther vehemently rejected, by the way. We study biographies to show us that God can transform anyone, an Egyptian murderer, an adulterous king, and a radically zealous Pharisee, just as easily as he can transform us.   

     Luther believed that there were/are two necessities in the preaching event that opens up this transformative state. Number one, the Holy Spirit must open the “ears” of the hearer. The Spirit must ready the heart to hear and receive the Good News. Number two the hearer must receive the words spoken when the Holy Spirit has readied the heart. Thus a balance is struck between the Sovereignty of God’s electing purposes and the human responsibility so necessary in Luther’s soteriology.

     In this Luther understood the importance of preaching and not simply homilitizing a few points. His sermons were rich with detail and illustrations that attempted to connect with the hearer’s minds and hearts in a way to draw them into the message—and all of this because he understood the importance of the imputation in justification and sanctification.   

     The article itself was well written and thought provoking. I will admit that I was skeptical of its value for about the first half of the article. The writing style was very academic and the use of Latin and reference of the sinner in the female gender threw me. (That is not a complementarian complaint, just a note of writing and reading style and preferences.) In fact for the first two pages I thought Dr. Rolf was referring to God in the female gender. Nonetheless, the article ended on a high note and I learned much about Luther’s view of preaching.

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE: A BIBLICAL VIEW

.

Marriage was ordained by God in the beginning. As such, He placed a high value on it. In Genesis 2:21-15 we read the account of the first marriage. God took a part of Adam and created Eve. Adam later said that she was, “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” The Hebrew word for bone is `etsem[1] which can be defined as “substance or self.” Likewise, the Hebrew word for flesh is Basar[2] and carries the meaning “mankind.” What Adam is telling us is that God made them in such a way that they complimented and completed one another. It is almost as if, by becoming married, that they produce with-in themselves a new, shared DNA—that they became “one flesh.”

Obviously, there is no chemical or physiological chain reaction that took place. This should be viewed, rather, as a spiritual transformation. God creates two people that He means for each other, and He intends it to be for a lifetime.  This produces a perfect coupling and a stable environment for procreation and for modeling love, compassion and the family dynamic to future generations.  Unfortunately; however, we do not live in a perfect world. Many things crept into mankind’s lives because of Adam and Eve’s choices: disease, murder, death, and idolatry. Perhaps; however, the most hurtful and harmful of all is the ability of men and women to rip apart their souls through the plague of divorce.

John Piper correctly sees the marriage between husband and wife as symbolic of the “love-covenant” that Jesus shares with the church. Piper says, “There is a deep and profound significance to the union of husband and wife in ‘one flesh’ as a parable of the relationship between Christ and his church.”[3]  Thus divorce, the breaking of that covenant, is as repulsive in God’s eyes as a saved person losing their salvation. Now, while the possibility of someone losing their salvation is zero, (because God is perfect) the chances for a divorce are around thirty-three percent.[4] With nearly one-third of marriages ending in divorce, it is easy to see that this represents a crisis, not only for the nation, but also for the church. The question being asked is about this problem of divorce and the natural consequence, remarriage. What does the Bible say and what should the church do?

The Bible is not silent on divorce. Both Jesus and Paul taught on the subject. Coming from those two teachers, we have a myriad of views on the subject, however. Some Bible scholars believe that divorce is permitted for most any reason. Still others take the hard-line view of no divorce whatsoever. Most fall somewhere in the middle. A typical belief, coming from the New Testament, is that there are a few legitimate reasons why divorce is permissible. These would mostly be infidelity, abandonment, and abuse, with a few other reasons sprinkled in, depending on the person’s doctrine.

In Mathew Nineteen, Jesus taught that divorce was sinful with only one exception, adultery. He reprimanded the Pharisees, a very strict religious group; because they believed the Deuteronomical clause allowing for a bill of divorce was a loophole that God had given to men. Instead Jesus chided them for being sinful, saying, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Mathew 19:8 ESV) God made a provision in Deuteronomy because men were sinful in their treatment of women. The law was for the protection of women, not for the absolution of men.

Paul also entered into the discussion in First Corinthians. Paul speaks plainly, saying that wives should stay with their husbands, and men should not divorce their wives. He does allow an exception in the case of immorality and adds abandonment to the list. Tony Evans also adds abusive relationships at this point, referring to what he calls a spouse that is “covenantally dead.[5]” In essence, Evans looks at the unspiritual spouse as one who is “dead” to the relationship and therefore would fall into the Romans 7 category. By being spiritually dead (lost), that spouse is not living up to their covenant requirements. If they are rebellious and refuse to rectify their spiritual mortality, then they are as good as dead in the eyes of the church. Basically, according to Evans’ view, physical death and spiritual death are both grounds for divorce, as it were. While this is refreshingly Reformed in its theological context, it might be stretching Romans 7 to new elastic lengths.

Virtually all reputable scholars and teachers understand that divorce is bad, but that because we are less than perfect creatures living in a less than perfect world, there are certain exceptions that allow for divorce. The true problems arise with the aftermath of divorce. And the main snare which traps so many in a very heated debate is the issue of remarriage.

The biggest issue facing the church today is this issue of divorce. Divorce rates are staggeringly high, and the church is not immune from the societal impact. George Barna, as previously noted, places the American divorce rate at around thirty-three percent. Unlike many recent cataclysmic reporting of a near fifty percent divorce rate, Barna looks at the number of married Americans that have experienced divorce at least once.[6] Some statisticians erroneously looked at the number of new marriages (2.4 million) contrasted with the number of new divorces (1.2 million) and said half of all marriages fail. They failed to take into account that there were fifty-four million marriages intact leading up to the divorce rate of nearly one million.

Nevertheless, fifty percent or thirty-three percent is obscenely high, either way. The impact to the church has been that many in our church membership have now been negatively impacted. In fact, many in the church’s leadership have been affected. At one time, a divorced deacon would be considered an oxymoron. Yet today, we have many churches with divorced pastors! This has led many members to ask, “What does the Bible say about divorce and especially remarriage?”

Obviously, the answers are as varied as the respondents. John Piper, for instance, gives very little leeway, whilst John MacArthur gives none. Tony Evans has a completely different view than Rick Warren. The answers of Jesus and Paul leave us with theology and doctrine, but good theology and doctrine do not always answer the questions from couples who are hurting or recovering from failed relationships.

According to Dr. Thomas Whiteman there can be a silver lining in the inherit nature of the problem. The more prevalent the problem is, says Whiteman, the more emphasis, research, teaching, etc. is given to finding solutions.[7]  Les Parrott III says that the blithe of divorce on our landscape has affected our, “family relationships, economic situation, self-esteem, security, optimism, and worldview.”[8]  Therefore, the church has brought more attention and resources to the issue in recent decades. The church has also started to change in their understanding and dealings with divorced individuals.

This then becomes the crux of the issue then, in the author’s understanding. In exactly what role can the divorced person, or divorced and remarried person play in the church? Is leadership strictly reserved for those who have never been divorced? Has the divorced or divorced and remarried person had “Ichabod” stamped across their church membership so that they are ineligible to serve?

As stated earlier, many churches have revisited the issue of First Timothy 3. The interpretation of this passage of Scripture now resembles the make-up of the congregants more than in the past.  Previously, churches taught that being the husband of one wife meant no one who had been divorced could serve in leadership; now many now treat the passage as meaning something closer to “a one-woman man.” The newer interpretation indicating that the passage is referring to “one woman at a time.” In addition, some writers, such as KÖstenberger, interpret mias gynaikas andra to mean a “faithful husband.”[9] Therefore, being faithful in the present marriage is the standard to which the Apostle was aiming.

KÖstenberger also makes an excellent point that reading it as “husband of one wife” would also eliminate the man who never married from service. It would also be incongruent to see this one sin as elevated above others. For instance, the prohibition on drinking does not exclude the man who has been drunk one time in his life. The use of the Greco-Roman customs and language in KÖstenberger’s argument also lend credence to his conclusions that divorce and remarriage, in and of itself, is not a limiting factor to service. Rather, it is the consistent character of life that the individual is leading, the faithfulness, and current standing in relation to the Lord.

The most overlooked aspect of this problem for the church is grace.   It seems as though Christians are the only creatures that would come across the scene of a car wreck and shoot the survivors. It is when people are at their most vulnerable that grace and compassion should be administered the most lavishly. Believers often lament that members stay away from church when going through a divorce, but the rationale is easily seen. Church is often the only place they will feel judged.

Yet, it is the grace of God that saw those who will do the judging through their own hardships. It is puzzling at best, sinful at its worst. If the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was to pay for the sins of all, and we truly believe that God has placed our sins, “as far as the east is from the west” away from us, then why do we not allow those who have suffered from the painful sin of a failed marriage to place their sins from east to west also?

The church should work with couples before they marry to prepare them for the incredible strains that this world and its enticements place on a marriage. We should be constantly vigilant in keeping them in God’s Word while they work through life’s difficulties. And, when it is too much and they succumb to the temptation and divorce without biblical allowances, we should be the healing balm that God intended for us to be with one another.

Bibliography

_____________. The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon. Crosswalk, 2011. [online] Accessed August 4, 2011. Available at http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/etsem.html

Barna, George. New Marriage and Divorce Statistics. [online] Accessed August 6, 2011. Available at http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

Evans, Tony. Speaks Out On Divorce and Remarriage. Moody Press, Chicago. 1995.

KÖstenberger, Andreas J. God, Marriage, And Family: Rebuilding The Biblical Foundation. 2^nd Ed. Crossway, Wheaton. 2010.

Parrott, Les, III. Once Upon A Family: Building A Healthy Home When Your Family Isn’t A Fairy Tale. Beacon Hill, Kansas City. 1996.

Piper, John. Divorce & Remarriage : A Position Paper. [online] Accessed August 4, 2011. Available at http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper

Whiteman, Thomas. Your Kids and Divorce. Helping Them Grow Beyond The Hurt. Baker Books, Grand Rapids. 2001

---

[1] _______. Crosswalk Lexicon. [online]

[2] Ibid

[3] Piper. Divorce & Remarriage

[4] Barna. New Marriage and Divorce Statistics. [online]

[5] Evans. Speaks Out. 30-38

[6] Barna. New Marriage and Divorce Statistics. [online]

[7] Whiteman. Your Kids and Divorce. 18-19

[8] Parrott. Once Upon A Family. 58

[9] KÖstenberger, God, Marriage, and Family. 241

A Modern Look At Existentialism

So...we live in a post-modern, relativistic world dominated by the philosophy called existentialism. This philosophy basically states that there are no absolutes in the world, especially when it comes to truth. What is true for you, is not necessarily true for me. This view of existentialism is especially held with post-modernity's view of religion. It was Friedrich Nietzsche who said, "There are no facts, only interpretations." Which he took to mean that his own statement was factual, by the way. It is like the man who says "There are no absolute truths." I say, "Are you absolutely sure?" The existentialist says, "There are no facts, only interpretations." But then tells modernists, quite factually I might add, that they are wrong and bigoted because the modernists' interpretation differs from their own.




Now friends, let me assure you that there are absolute truths in this world. For instance, let's say I hit an existentialist...when he gets up...he will know that some things hurt. That is a truth. :)



Or better yet, let's say that there are three men on the roof. One believes that the law of gravity exists. One believes that the law of gravity is relative. The third has never even heard of Newton. All three jump. I promise you this, all three will go splat. Not just the one who believed or had knowledge.



There are some inescapable truths:

2+2 will always equal 4.

What goes up, must come down.

The French will always surrender.

The Word of God is the Absolute Truth.



Look, we don't have to teach our children to lie. Do we? We also don't have to teach them to know it's bad either. An Aboriginal living away from society and western culture still knows that there is something greater than we are. He may not know which god is God, but he knows there is something that is innate in his being that desires to worship something or someone. That is an absolute, also. Even the atheist's have their gods. They may not acknowledge them as such, but they are gods in their lives. Science, technology, and even philosophy itself can be worshipped.



The Apostle Paul said this in Romans 1:

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.


21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.


24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.


28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

See, they try to suppress the truth, but they can't. Now tell me that this passage doesn't sound like modern America? In this new land of the free, the only thing that is not tolerated, is intolerance itself! We are told by the existentialist crowd that we MUST be tolerant of other's religious views. Yet they themselves are intolerant of our intolerance! This intolerance is Christianity's most valued doctrine. There is but one God, and His name is Jehovah. He is represented in three personalities, The Father, Son, and Spirit. And THE ONLY WAY to have a right relationship with Him, is through His Son, Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me." That is as absolute as truth gets. And quite frankly folks, as intolerant, also.

Marriage For Dummies: Making It Work God’s Way

.

One of my D-Min classes for this summer is an advanced class on Biblical Counseling. So we had to “pretend” to write a sermon outline for Ephesians 5:21-33 and then define male headship and wifely submission. So here’s my stab at it:

 Marriage For Dummies: Making It Work God’s Way

I. The Role Of Submission

Submission; Not Subservience (Just as Jesus was submissive to the Father, but ever equal with the Father, so the wife should submit to the husband, but remains equal)

21 Submitting to one another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 

II. The Rule Of Sanctification

Servant-Leadership; Following The Savior’s Example 

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

III. The Responsibility Of Sacrifice

Sacrificial Love; Leading By Loving (Christ’t s love for the church was so great He was willing to die for her. So husbands should put the welfare of wife and family first.)

28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”< /span>

IV. The Reciprocity Of Selflessness

Shared Respect; Seeing Christ IN Each Other

32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

"male headship": The husband is ordained by God to be the spiritual leader of the house and family. While it is possible for him to delegate authority to his wife, i.e. paying bills, disciplining the children, etc., he cannot delegate the responsibility. Ultimately, God holds the man responsible for the happiness and spiritual well being of the family.

"female submission’ Submission should not be confused with subservience. The wife is to submit to her husband’s decisions, especially on matters that are spiritual in nature. She has a voice and should support her husband by freely advising him as a partner in the marriage and parenting. Ultimately; however, she should support her husband’s decisions.

As Awsome As An Army With Banners

.

So I have been invited to preach at a Bible Conference in May. I like it when I'm asked to preach other places. It is nice to know that what I have to say is considered worth-while outside my own church.

So I thought about what I might say at the Bible Conference. (I have been strictly informed not to call this the "R" word.) After praying about it for a few weeks, I am fairly sure that I will use Song of Songs 6:10. Yes, preaching from the Song of Songs can be tricky.

There are three ways one can look at the SoS.

The Historical View, which says that these are real, historical characters. The Shulamite woman, her Beloved, and the women were real people.   I believe that is true.

The Romantic View, which says that this book is a guide to how we are to show romantic love within the God ordained bounds of marriage. This view is also true. Then there is,

The Classical View, which spiritualizes the content of this marvelous book, and shows the relationship between God and His people. Obviously, this is true as well.

As odd as it seems on the surface, I go with all three views. This is not contradictory. Solomon loved him some Queen Sheba, and she loved her some Beloved; which shows us how to love our spouses. And this is a wonderful type of the agape love the Father has for us.

Oh, yeah...Song of Songs 6:10: check this out

Who is she who looks forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, as awesome as an army with banners?

Who is she? The Shulamite woman; a man's betrothed; and the Bride of Christ. The church.

Solomon needed to rescue, renew, and restore his bride to her proper place. Likewise men, we must never forget to place our wife's importance above our own. But...I am focusing on that spiritualized context. Doesn't that sound a little bit like Revi...uhmmm... a Bible Conference message to you?

So here it is, The Recipe For Renewal (That R word should be allowed) Hopefully somebody that actually knows how to run the recording device will be in charge on May 3, and I can post the message here for your listening enjoyment

.Nevertheless, please pray that God will use this time to bless in a mighty way.