Items tagged interview

Two Testaments, One Story

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:27:47 GMT

Christianity Today has an interview with G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson on their recent publication, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.

Mark Dever Interviewed about Richard Sibbes

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:05:19 GMT

Timmy Brister interviews Mark Dever, the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C., and president of 9 Marks Ministry, about the Puritan preacher Richard Sibbes. Dever wrote the definitve biography on Richard Sibbes, first as a dissertation, and then as a book. Dever discusses Sibbes’ life, theology, and both Brister and Dever discuss issues with the SBC and other denominational concerns in light of Sibbes point of view.

Brister is responsible for starting the 2008 Puritan Book Reading Challenge; a challenge to read 12 Puritan classics in 1 year, one each month. The book assigned for January is ‘The Bruised Reed’ written by, you guessed it, Richard Sibbes. My wife and I are unofficially participating in the challenge, reading ‘The Bruised Reed’ together aloud. Each month Brister plans to conduct one interview to coincide with the book assigned to that month.

All in all, this is a helpful and interesting interview. The challenge is a great effort.

Mark Dever on Richard Sibbes mp3>>>

An Interview with Carl Trueman

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:05:54 GMT

by Derek Thomas

Conventicle Q&A with Dr. Carl Trueman

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:53:32 GMT

Carl Trueman is Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary. He was previously Lecturer in Theology at the University of Nottingham (1993-1998), and Senior Lecturer in Church History at the University of Aberdeen (1998-2001). He has also held the position of Editor of the theological journal, Themelios, since 1998. Dr Trueman, your early research

Interview on the New Perspective on Paul

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:05:13 GMT

Mark Dever interviews Simon Gathercole (NT professor at Cambridge) and Peter Williams (warden of Tyndale House). The interview was recorded in November 2006 (when Gathercole and Williams were both at Aberdeen).

(HT: Jim Hamilton)

PS. Gathercole mentions his book on The Gospel of Judas, which is due out in December from Oxford University Press.

An Interview with Bryan Chapell

Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:59:13 GMT

Preaching Today interviews Bryan Chapell about expository preaching.

(HT: Unashamed Workman)

Preston Sprinkle on the New Perspective

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:05:14 GMT

My good friend Jim Hamilton interviews Preston Sprinkle today about issues related to biblical theology and the New Perspective on Paul. All you bibliophiles and theologues need to check this one out.

“Interview with Preston Sprinkle on Leviticus 18:5″ - by Jim Hamilton

Raising the Foundations: an interview with Gary L. W. Johnson part 1

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:05:20 GMT

Gary L. W. Johnson is the senior minister of Church of the Redeemer (Mesa, Arizona). He has co-edited, along with R. Fowler White, Whatever Happened to the Reformation? and earlier this year he and Guy Waters edited By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification. His most recent book is an edited collection entitled B. B. Warfield:

Essays on his life and thought

.

The gospel will always be under attack. Even when issues appear to have been settled, time has shown that new challenges and fresh, sometimes subtle, reinterpretations arise in the Church. This has been especially true of justification by faith alone.

Gary Johnson and I discussed one strand of the contemporary debate about justification connected with Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision.

Have you ever been drawn toward any views or movements that time has shown to have been unhelpful or even dangerous?

Yes, and it happened in the last place I would have expected. I walked on to the campus of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1978, just as the controversy swirling around Norman Shepherd was reaching a crescendo. Norman Shepherd, as you know, succeeded the acclaimed Scottish theologian John Murray (after his retirement in 1963) in the department of Systematic Theology. Around 1974, it became obvious that Shepherd’s views on justification were starting to attract attention and alarm.

When I arrived, the campus was polarized. Shepherd had his faithful followers amongst the faculty and the student body, and I initially found myself drawn toward his views because of my own experience with the ‘anti-Lordship’ theology of Charles Ryrie, and those like him from Dallas Theological Seminary. This was traceable to my own background. I became a Christian shortly after I returned from serving in combat in Vietnam with the U.S. Army in 1971 and was nurtured in a “Dallas” Bible church and the kind of things that were usually associated with those kind of churches, i.e. Hal Lindsey’s books, Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ.

How did you move away from this 'anti-Lordship' emphasis and toward Reformed theology?

My exposure to the doctrines of grace, or Calvinism, as it is usually called, came through the tape ministry of the late S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (who I later studied under and served as his teaching assistant at T.E.D.S. in 1983-84). It was Dr. Johnson who introduced me to the Old Princeton men like Hodge, Warfield and Machen. He also directed me to Westminster.

Was the controversy at Westminster related to the difference between what has been pejoratively called "easy believism" and Reformed theology?

It appeared to me, and others at the time, that Shepherd’s views were reactionary to the kind of teaching that characterized Evangelicalism as popularly expressed by Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ, who were in turn deeply indebted to the kind of antinomian teaching that Ryrie and Zane Hodges gave scholarly credibility.

At first I understood Shepherd to be proposing an antidote to this kind of “easy believism.” In fact Cornelius Van Til told us that he supported Shepherd because, “Bill Bright is not right!” But, as the debate intensified, I began to see things differently.

How were Professor Shepherd's views perceived and responded to at Westminster during that time?

In response to concerned faculty members, Shepherd prepared a discussion paper in 1976 of fifty-three pages, not intended for distribution, entitled, “The Relation of Good Works to Justification in the Westminster Standards.” It made a startling and categorical statement: “To insist on faith alone for justification is a serious impoverishment.”

He went on to claim that Westminster Standards supported his position much to the shock and consternation of a number of his fellow faculty members, Robert Strimple (Systematic Theology), Robert Godfrey (Church History), Meredith Kline (Old Testament), W. Stanford Reid (Church History), Philip Hughes (Reformation Studies), O. Palmer Robertson (Old Testament), and Robert Knudsen (Apologetics). I remember the open debates amongst various members of the faculty that were held in Van Til Hall. These were often very heated and animated!

Two of my classes quickly introduced me to the seriousness of this controversy. My course with W. Robert Godfrey, “The Theology of The Counter Reformation,” revealed that Shepherd had more in common with the Council of Trent than he did with the Reformers. (Godfrey, Reid and Hughes—all exceptional church historians—were accused by Shepherd of being “Lutherans”—needless to say they all found that charge absurd—but Shepherd and his disciples, in what goes by the label “The Federal Vision,” continue to make it—more about this later).

The other class, “Old Testament Biblical Theology” with Meredith Kline introduced me to the centrality of covenant theology, particularly the critical nature of the Covenant of Works in understanding the active and passive obedience of Christ in securing our salvation.

Shepherd admitted that a truly justified person could lose that justification, and as such (in his scheme) justification was subject to increase or decrease, something that his predecessor, John Murray, emphatically denied in his gem of a book,

Redemption Accomplished and Applied

.

Among the more outspoken critics of Shepherd outside of the seminary community, included the late Martyn Lloyd Jones, who called Shepherd’s doctrine “another gospel.” This is significant in light of John Frame’s (who defended Shepherd then and now) recent inflammatory remarks in the

Backbone of The Bible

(ed. Andrew Sandlin), where he called Shepherd’s critics “stupid” and unfit to be theological teachers. Frame, who was at WTS in Philadelphia during this period, knew about Lloyd-Jones’ assessment, and that of other respected Reformed Theologians who likewise opposed Shepherd’s views on justification.

In addition to Lloyd-Jones, these included Sinclair Ferguson, Roger Nicole, William Hendricksen and Gregg Singer (a good account of this situation is provided by A. Donald MacLeod’s

W. Stanford Reid: An Evangelical Calvinist in the Academy

, published by McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004).

Interview with Francis Beckwith

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:05:20 GMT

Greg Koukl conducts a two-hour interview with Frank Beckwith on his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

(HT: Denny Burk)

John Hendryx Interviews Dr. Steven J. Lawson

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:05:23 GMT

Last week at the Christian Booksellers Association conference in Altanta Georgia, Dr. Steven Lawson (Pastor and author of Foundations of Grace and The Expository Genius of John Calvin) was gracious enough to grant me an interview. We sat in a coffee shop for a couple of hours and I was edified to hear his obvious passion for our Lord. Our time together gave me great encouragement and I left him with a few questions he could reflect on and get back to me with.

Here is the fruit of our conversation:

The Faithful Pastor and the Faithful Church: an interview with Mark Dever

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:28:20 GMT

Mark Dever is the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C. and serves as the executive director for 9 Marks ministries.

As you reflect back to your days in seminary and early years in the ministry were there men who started out with evangelical convictions who later moved away from the gospel? How did you cope with that?

Not really. I myself had been an agnostic and became an evangelical Christian. So, I was part of the stream flowing in the opposite direction. When I read liberal books or had liberal professors in seminary, I was aware that many of them would have had their beginnings in evangelical Christianity, but I wasn’t aware of their particular stories.

Have you ever been drawn toward any views or movements that time has shown to have been unhelpful or even dangerous theologically?

Yes. I was involved in the Charismatic movement for a couple of years when I first became a Christian. The part of the Charismatic movement that I was involved in was mishandling Scripture. It tended to be too human centered concentrating on how much “faith” we had, and effectively de-emphasized the gospel that saves.

How should a minister keep his heart, mind, and will from theological error?

I would encourage a man to marry a woman who loves the Lord as much or more than he does, and to stay in the Word. I would also encourage him to build relationships with people in a sound Bible-preaching church.

Hilary of Poitiers said that "Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written. The guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text." What are the dangers signs of this very thing happening in a man's ministry?

The danger signs that I can think of would be avoiding honest relationships and playing fast and loose with the biblical text.

How have you dealt with church members or students who have been attracted or taken in by false teaching?

My fundamental way of dealing with church members who seem to be attracted to false teaching is to provide good teaching regularly. If in God’s providence that fails to be sufficient to keep them orthodox, then apart from some personal conversations or correspondence, I simply entrust them to the hands of God and concentrate on shepherding those sheep whom he has given me.

Why do men possessed of fine intellectual gifts end up embracing and believing significant theological errors?

Go read 1 Corinthians 1. No one is saved by their intellect. God has determined to show his wisdom in ways that appear foolish to the wise of this world.

How can a minister discern the difference between those who are thinking their way through doctrines on the way to greater depth and clarity, and those who are questioning doctrines in a way that could lead to significant error?

Being able to do this is basic to serving as a pastor. Is there a full cooperation in the life of the church with the person? Is there some immorality that it seems they are trying to justify? Do they seem to desire to follow God as much as they can see in Scripture?

How should a pastor protect the flock and help them to value sound doctrine when he knows that they could well be influenced by an overload of unhelpful teaching from books, conferences, television, and the internet?

A pastor should give himself to faithful preaching and real relationships.

What would you consider to be the main theological dangers confronting us today and how can we deal with them?

The main theological dangers I see confronting us today are a practical rejection of the authority of God’s word even by those who theoretically submit to it; a rejection of the sovereignty of God in favor of the putative sovereignty of man; a caricature, misunderstanding, or rejection of the penal substitution of Christ for sinners; a shallow understanding of conversion as a mere shift of opinions; a worldliness in our evangelism which deceives people about the very nature of the gospel we are hoping to win them to; an individualism that de-centers the congregation from the life of a Christian; and a carelessness of churches in addressing members in unrepentant sin, which causes untold confusion about what it means to be a Christian. I think that we deal with these dangers by understanding and teaching what God has called the local church to be and, by his Spirit’s power, working to be that.

It is natural that a younger generation can find it harder to navigate the theological currents in the church. What advice would you give to younger ministers as they assess and handle various movements today?

I would encourage them to find reliable mentors and to trust them. Know the Word well yourself. Give yourself to the study of God’s Word. Try to learn your own heart’s deceptiveness and get others to try to help you recognize it. Read the best of authors, not the most popular. Be especially careful to investigate honestly doctrines that you think you don’t like.

What is the best way for a busy pastor to keep informed of contemporary theological issues when he knows that there is simply not enough time to read all the books? Could you name a handful of critical issues and the best material on them.

I don’t know how important I think this is; I think that it is far more important to know the truth than to learn all of the counterfeits. Al Mohler, Don Carson, John Piper, David Wells, Ligon Duncan are a great early warning system.

A Debtor to Mercy Alone: an interview with Guy Waters, part 3

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:05:14 GMT

How have you dealt with church members or students who have been attracted or taken in by false teaching?

A minister whom I have long known and respected puts it nicely – our goal is to build consensus around the truth. We are not engaged in a “win-at-all-costs” argumentative contest. Our goal is to win the person – not at the expense of the truth, but by means of the truth.

To that end, we need to identify the allure of or concern underlying the false teaching in question. Why is that person attracted to a particular unbiblical doctrine? Very often, the individual is reacting against some other error that he has encountered in his past. One error comes to be substituted for another error. For example, individuals rightly concerned with antinomianism or “easy believism” in the church may very well be tempted to embrace a neonomian doctrine of justification – justification on the basis of our Christian obedience. Individuals rightly concerned with an unwholesomely subjective piety may very well be tempted to assign the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper a central and defining role in the Christian life.

In such a case, we should endeavor to show them the balance of biblical truth. We should show them that the Scripture, rightly understood, addresses their concerns, and addresses those concerns without the liabilities that the errors in question carry.

That having been said, I think we need to be realistic. Error is sin. In my limited experience, I have seen very few in the grip of serious error truly repent of it. We need to pray – for them and for ourselves. We are but instruments in the hands of a sovereign God. Only the Holy Spirit can dispose the heart to receive the truth. This is not to say that we should be slack in our labors. Far from it. Rather, our labors must be accompanied by fervent prayer.

How do you cope with men who are sound in many ways, and whose ministries have been beneficial, but who, nonetheless, have held harmful views?

I have heard the late Dr. John H. Gerstner quoted as saying that while it is possible for a man to bleed to death from a paper cut, it is not likely. In other words, every deviation from the whole counsel of God is serious and potentially fatal. Some errors, however, are simply more fundamental than others. Some do not strike at the heart of biblical teaching as others do.

A difficult but necessary task is to evaluate a man’s ministry by asking certain basic and diagnostic questions: Is this man preaching and teaching the biblical gospel? Would I be comfortable entrusting an unbelieving friend or relative to his presentation of the gospel? Are the doctrines of God, sin, the person and work of Christ, and the Holy Spirit present in his teaching? Are they present in their biblical integrity? Are they present in their proper proportion? Is his teaching free from errors that would fatally compromise the gospel?

If we can answer those questions in the affirmative, then we should be prepared to count these men brethren, to come alongside them, and to assist them in their ministries as much as we are able. This doesn’t mean that we pretend that our differences don’t exist. Our common commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ should give us the freedom to engage one another’s differences charitably.

What would you consider to be the main theological dangers confronting us today and how can we deal with them?

When I look at the evangelical church at the dawn of the twenty-first century, I suppose that I could draw up a list of any number of specific theological dangers that are before us.

My concern, however, transcends those specifics. Let me mention two things. Machen wrote at the dawn of the twentieth century that the great challenge facing the church was “doctrinal indifferentism.” I am afraid that nearly a century later, that verdict stands. I sense that a generation ago there was a relatively clear theological understanding of what it meant to be an evangelical. I don’t think that is true today. Evangelicalism’s boundaries strike me as so porous as to admit virtually anything – Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Postmodernism, and the list goes on. Part of the problem is a prevailing indifference to doctrine or theology. Our culture – in which it is possible to affirm everything and forbidden to deny anything – doesn’t make our job any easier. But if we are not a confessing church, then we have forfeited our right to be the church.

A second and related concern is the appeal of the “cutting edge” within evangelicalism. Biblical doctrine and the Bible’s teaching on the Christian life is, at one level, quite boring. It is simple, lacking in gadgetry and spectacle, and unchanging. Whether it is the latest theological “hand-me-down” from the academy, or the most recent technique or movement for living the Christian life, the church seems to have an unwholesome longing for what is promoted as “new, fresh, and relevant.” Of course, in reality there is nothing new under the sun. “Fresh” and “cutting edge” are terms that often mask our ignorance of church history. If we did enough digging, we would find that the church has long ago weighed, tried, and discarded most of what is being presented to us as the “latest thing.” God’s admonition is especially timely in our present age: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and you will find rest for your souls’” (Jer 6:16).

A Debtor to Mercy Alone: an interview with Guy Waters, part 1

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:05:17 GMT

Dr. Guy Prentiss Waters is associate professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, (Jackson, Mississippi), and a minister in the PCA. He has written Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response and The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis as well as being co-editor with Gary L. W. Johnson of the recent volume By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification.

Have you ever been drawn toward any views or movements that time has shown to have been unhelpful or even dangerous theologically?

I was raised in a mainline liberal church. Shortly after I became a Christian, my boyhood pastor told me that he was a universalist (he believed that every human being is going to be saved). I remember a lot of sermons from the Gospels (especially Jesus’ teachings), but very little from the rest of the Bible. We recited the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, but I had only a foggy understanding of their meaning.

If you had asked me at age twelve why I was a Christian and why I thought that I was going to heaven, I probably would have pointed to my church membership, to my sometime attendance at church services, to my reputation as a “good kid” in the community, and to my non-rejection of my upbringing. A personal, vital relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ was something for the fundamentalists, but it wasn’t for me.

The liberalism in which I had been raised taught me to put my trust and confidence in myself and in my performance. It was natural religion with a Christian veneer, the acceptance of a modified form of the Covenant of Works (“do this and you will live … with a little help from God!”).

The Lord was pleased to awaken me and later to convert me. By His grace and mercy, I was confronted with and drawn to biblical truths that I believe were absent from the teaching of my youth (but would have been repugnant to me at that time had I been taught them): the infinite holiness of God, the depth and vileness of my sin, justification by faith alone, and the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. The Lord has enabled me to grow in my understanding of the Reformed faith, but by God’s grace I have not been drawn, for instance, to Arminianism or Roman Catholicism.

How should a minister keep his heart, mind, and will from theological error?

I think the minister must first convince himself that he is subject to theological error. The deceit and draw of error is no less powerful than it is subtle. The moment we persuade ourselves that we are immunized from theological error is the moment we have opened the gates of our heart to that deadly Trojan horse.

The minister should be constantly studying the Scripture. He should also be reading and studying recognized creeds and confessions, like the Westminster Standards. We don’t place the Standards over the Scripture, of course (WCF 1.10). The Standards and other faithful summaries of Christian doctrine allow us, as a friend of mine once put it, to “check our homework,” to compare our studies in the Scripture with those of competent and recognized students of the same.

To this end, the minister should resolve to study good books – the best books. I am amazed when I survey the Internet at both the wealth and poverty of information available there. The web is a dangerous place for someone who is not cultivating the biblical duty of discernment. It is not the “go to” place for most ministers to advance their theological education after Seminary. The minister should be devouring Calvin, Turretin, the British Puritans, the Dutch “Second Reformation” Divines, the Scottish and American Presbyterians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and their modern heirs. The minister should read recent books, but read them with discernment. Most recent books are untested. Reading the older writers appreciatively allows us both to remain in the “old paths” and to read recent literature without uncritical enthusiasm towards the contemporary.

Gresham Machen once wrote "In the field of New Testament there is no place for the weakling. Decisiveness, moral and intellectual, is absolutely required." Have you found that to be true in your own experience as a student and teacher of New Testament?

I love that quote from Machen. He puts it so well. New Testament studies is not a “lukewarm” discipline. It is burning hot: the integrity, authenticity, and credibility of the New Testament as the Word of God; the identity and authority of Jesus Christ; and the very definition of the gospel itself – all hang in the balance. One called to study and to teach the New Testament must resolve to tackle these issues head on.

But it’s not enough to face the questions. One must also be prepared to answer them while firmly standing upon the foundation of biblical Christianity. Ministers and teachers are called to pass along the deposit that they have received and not to compromise it. Accommodating that foundation to the latest trends of scholarship – whether it be Historical Jesus scholarship, or the New Perspective on Paul – undercuts the very purpose of the teaching office in the church: “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2).

Interview with Mark Dever

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:47:16 GMT

In response to Crossway’s release of What Is a Healthy Church? by Mark Dever, I submitted a few questions to Dr. Dever, which he was gracious enough to answer. The brief text-interview is below:

1) We hear a lot today about contextualization of the Gospel. What is your view of the role of contextualization and church health?

My view changes with the definition of contextualization. The more we are talking about contextualization as the basic translation of God’s truth into language we understand (e.g. including even literal translations from the Hebrew and Greek into local language), then such contextualization is vital. On the other hand, the more we are talking about the eating habits of nurses in St. Louis on the night shift needing to be understood in order to witness to them then the less central such contextualization is to the gospel and church health.

2) One of the things that most impressed me when I came to a “Weekender” was the culture of service at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. What advice would you give on how a pastor can cultivate an attitude of service in his own heart and then build it into the life of the local church?

A pastor should cultivate, within his own heart, a continuing stunned and surprised joy of God’s inclusion of him in the gospel, to take a way any sense of entitlement, and this should encourage graciousness and service that should come from such an appreciation.

3) Do you have a sort of outline or structure in your mind when you think of discipleship or do you think of it more as a dynamic, person by person process? Even if it is the latter, are there certain signs of growth that you watch for as you walk with someone?

I do think of it as the latter, and yes there are signs of growth that I would generally watch for. One of the chief would be an obvious concern growing in the heart of the disciple for other people and for God’s glory and will to be accomplished in the lives of others – for his thoughts to be more taken up with others than with himself.

4) What are your thoughts on the relationship between youth ministry, as it is typically practiced in churches here in the States, and church health?

The most important teaching the youth receive is from the home, if they are from a Christian home, and from the pulpit.

5) Are there dangers or pitfalls that you see afflicting pastors and/or churches that are sympathetic with the mission of 9Marks?

The whole purpose of 9Marks, in one sense, is to identify and defeat certain temptation in the ministry. So, my short answer would be no. I think that we share all the same temptations and difficulties with other pastors.

6) Are there blogs that you find particularly helpful, or do you mainly avoid them altogether? Is there something you do to make sure that blogs and other daily stuff (political news, etc.) don’t keep you from your Canon of Theologians?

I don’t read blogs much.

—————-

Those interested in reading or hearing Dever sermons can check out the sermon page on the Capitol Hill Baptist Church website.

We praise God for the ministry he has given you, Mark, and we extend to you our hearty thanks for your faithful service and example, for your work on this and other books, and for this interview! May God continue to bless CHBC and 9Marks.

Christ's servant among sheep and wolves: an interview with Joel Beeke, part 3

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:01:10 GMT

Many Christians would be surprised to learn that major heretics like Pelagius and Faustus Socinus were known for scrupulously moral living, when perhaps they would have expected them to be openly immoral. How did Paul’s assertion that false teaching leads to ungodliness manifest itself in the lives of these false teachers?

It is a misreading of Paul to suggest that false teaching must always lead to ungodliness or immorality, although it often does. Paul was keenly aware of the life he had lived as a Pharisee, so zealous to observe the traditions of the elders that he claimed to be “touching the righteousness of the law, blameless” (Phil. 3:6). He likewise bears record of his fellow Jews that “they have zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:2–3). It is simply a fact of human experience that men often do the right things for the wrong reasons.

It is therefore essential to the Christian notion of ethics to consider motive or “the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12), as well as outward appearance or conduct, when determining whether one’s works are good or not. That which is not done out of true faith, in obedience to God’s Word, and for the glory of God, is not, in the most important sense, a good work (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 91). According to the Word of God, Pelagius and Faustus Socinus were both “as an unclean thing,” and all their good works were “as filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6).

However much these men may have lived an outwardly moral life, Scripture describes them in very different terms: as “grievous wolves … speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29–30). In the balance of Scripture, the sins of the mind and heart are more heinous than the sins of the flesh. It is gross wickedness to mislead others concerning the way of salvation, to destroy faith in the truth of God’s Word, and to corrupt the worship of God.

At the same time, many Christians are guilty of failing to “adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things” (Titus 2:9)—that is, by a consistent Christian manner of life and conduct. Because of the depravity that still cleaves to us, there must always be a gap between our profession and our conduct. We are called upon nonetheless to crucify the old nature, to walk in newness of life, and, in dependency on the Holy Spirit, to make every effort to narrow the gap between profession and conduct, for the sake of Christ and the gospel (cf. Rom. 8).

What would you consider to be the main theological dangers confronting us today, and how can we deal with them?

Some dangers have been with us for a long time, and some are just beginning to loom on the horizon. “The Battle for the Bible” has been with us for more than one hundred years, and it has proven to be a great setback for the cause of Christ in the world. The apostasy of the Protestant churches in Europe and Great Britain; the disorder and corruption of evangelical churches in North America; the extension of much of that disorder and corruption to newly planted churches in Latin America, Africa, and Asia; the resilience of corrupt bodies such as the Church of Rome, and the sway it holds over so many millions; the propagation of cults of many kinds—all this may be attributed in very large measure to ignorance, false views, and rank unbelief concerning the unique character, content, and authority of Holy Scripture as God’s written Word.

In the community of Reformed churches, we must deplore the rise of what can be called “boutique” versions of the Reformed faith: little groups centered around some novel idea or practice, such as paedocommunion, that sets them apart from other Reformed Christians. Equally distressing is the widespread defection from the faithful observance of the Second Commandment regarding the regulation of the content and manner of Christian worship; many Reformed Christians have forgotten that the Reformers were as much concerned to regulate Christian worship according to Scripture as they were determined to establish Christian doctrine from the Word of God. Rightly understood and practiced, Christian worship is profoundly theological, spiritual, and practical.

Nothing, however, is more astonishing than contemporary denials or disclaimers concerning faith as the sole instrument of our justification before God. Nothing was more basic to the Reformation, and nothing is more essential to the gospel, than justification by faith alone. Scripture acknowledges only one way of salvation, and it has nothing to do with covenant status, church membership, sacramental administration, Christian education, or progressive sanctification to acquire salvation. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).

Almost as disturbing is the rise of the “postmodern” school of thought or mind-set, and the inroads it is making among Christians in North America. As the name implies, postmodernism is a reaction to the modernism so dominant in Europe and America in the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth. One would think this rejection of modernism would work in favor of the historic Christian faith, but that is not the direction postmodernism has taken. Fundamental to postmodernism is the rejection of rational systems of thought and any kind of meta-narrative. Reformed Christianity has a rational system of thought, summarized in its historic creeds and confessions; its meta-narrative is nothing less than the witness of Holy Scripture to the history of redemption in Christ, and its summary in the gospel.

It is open to question whether there is any such thing as postmodernism, at least anything that can be expressed in positive terms. Even so, there are many important self-identified postmodern thinkers, writers, and shapers of popular culture. Their blend of radical skepticism, unbelief, eclecticism, and nihilism is making its impact on our world and the people to whom we must preach the gospel. It must also be admitted that these trends in the culture around us often have a profound and often destructive impact on the Christian church. We ministers should be alert to the ways in which the young people in our own churches, much more attuned to and involved in popular culture than we may like to think, may be embracing the stances and ways of postmodernism.

Knowledge is power, and we need to know and understand the world we live in and the churches we serve. Even more important, we need to grow in our knowledge and practice of the things taught and commanded in Holy Scripture. The man who knows the Scriptures well is “throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16), including in particular the good work of proclaiming the great truths of the Christian faith, wielding God’s Word as a mighty spiritual weapon, “casting down imagination, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5)—in order to save both himself and his hearers and to build up the church of Christ unto all generations.

It is natural that a younger generation can find it harder to navigate the theological currents in the church. With all your ministerial experience, what advice would you give to younger ministers as they assess and handle various movements today?

Younger ministers are sometimes the victim of the particular bent of their theological training. Since the rise of the so-called "Church Growth" movement, there has been an increasing emphasis on technique and methodology at the expense of the disciplines that once was the "meat and potatoes" of seminary education, namely, biblical languages, exegesis, systematics, apologetics, church history, and the history of Christian doctrine.

Where this shift in emphasis has taken place, the seminary graduate will not have the tools he needs to use Scripture effectively and to wield it with ever-increasing knowledge and skill as "the sword of the Spirit." He will not have sufficient access to the Scriptures themselves, nor the comprehensive and analytical grasp of Christian truth, to be a true minister of the Word in today's world. He will find himself captive to the winds of the moment. As a preacher, he will be reduced to repeating the ideas of other men, gleaned from commentaries and popular books.

The minister who finds himself in this unhappy position should take action to make up for this deficit of knowledge and skill. He can go back to seminary and make a better choice of a place to train. He can seek advice and direction from other ministers and enter on a course of self-study. The important thing is for him to realize what he doesn’t know and needs to know, and for him to seek out the best kind of books and study helps. Conferences and seminars are also helpful, and the guidance and encouragement of older and better-equipped ministers of the Word will be invaluable.

In sum, here are three short guidelines:

1. Become and stay well versed in the Scriptures, in confessional Reformed theology, and in the great classics of Reformed, experiential theology.

2. Summarize the errors of various movements succinctly from the pulpit when the scriptural text you are expounding pertains to them. Enlarge upon your exposure of error, perhaps, in catechism classes (because young people are the church’s future) or weekday classes (because those who attend have, in general, greater appreciation for apologetics than does your average Sabbath attendee and because your teaching situation is less formal).

3. Remember that you cannot study every false movement in depth, nor should you. Study in depth for yourself those that directly affect your congregation. Otherwise, read the best book from an evangelical perspective that refutes a particular error. In some cases, reading one good article may suffice.

Younger ministers should beware of being so caught up with the trends, debates, and crises of the present that they neglect to reinforce their knowledge of Christian history and Christian doctrine. It is important that they know what they are up against in terms of the challenges of today, but it is even more important that they know precisely what the Christian faith is at its roots, what the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ is, and how it is to be proclaimed, according to its Author. God does not change, His Word cannot change, His mercy is from everlasting to everlasting, and His Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Christ's servant among sheep and wolves: an interview with Joel Beeke, part 1

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:34:22 GMT

Dr. Joel Beeke serves as pastor of the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation (Grand Rapids), and is president and professor of systematic theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. He is the author of numerous books including The Quest For Full Assurance, and Meet The Puritans.

As you reflect back to your days in seminary and early years in the ministry, were there men who started out with evangelical convictions who later moved away from the gospel? How did you cope with that?

I can only think of a few men with whom I had some personal acquaintance who have fallen from evangelical convictions. Initially, these rare situations shook me—particularly one Reformed brother with whom I studied at Westminster Seminary who embraced Roman Catholicism. Praying for their awakening and return, and for myself that I might not stumble nor look down haughtily upon them, has helped me cope. Then, I suppose, so have the daily challenges of the ministry which press me to keep my hand on the plow and not become overly distracted by an erring brother or two.

I know far more ministerial colleagues—numbering well into the hundreds—who have moved from non-evangelical positions to a solid evangelical and Reformed stance. Many of them suffered greatly, losing large portions, if not all, of their congregations in the process. I have often been profoundly encouraged by their courageous stance to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3).

Have you ever been drawn toward any views or movements that time has shown to have been unhelpful or even dangerous theologically?

By the grace of God, no.

How should a minister keep his own heart, mind, and will from theological error?

Keep yourself deeply immersed in the Scriptures, and pray daily to be willing to surrender all to their inerrant truth.

Surround yourself with sound, godly colleagues and lay people who love you sufficiently to be honest with you, so that iron will sharpen iron.

Read the best, sound, scriptural, classic books, especially those by the Reformers and Puritans, that address your mind with clarity, convict your conscience with poignancy, bend your wills with conviction, and move your feet with passion.

Meditate on those truths preached that do your people the most good; in every case, you will discover that they are biblical truths.

Develop the hide of a rhinoceros so that you won’t be tossed about with every criticism and wind of doctrine while maintaining the heart of a child, so that you will be a tender undershepherd to the needy.

Calvin said that ministers have two voices. One is for the sheep and the other for warding off the wolves. How have you struck the right balance in this regard in your pulpit ministry?

I suppose that one can never be absolutely certain that he is striking the right balance on this critical subject, but here are four guidelines that I find helpful:

1. Pray daily for biblical balance in all areas of ministry.

2. Love your sheep. Love has a way of balancing out our often imbalanced personalities. Those in error can receive much more from a minister who obviously loves them than from one who comes across as combative.

3. Be patient with your sheep. Be willing to teach them the same truth repeatedly, just as the Lord has done with you (cf. Phil. 3:1; 2 Peter 3:1–2).

4. Let your “voice for the sheep“ always receive the primary accent of your ministry. Truth must ultimately be positive in nature to win the day with a congregation. Many ministers have focused too much on polemical and apologetical theology, often setting up and beating upon straw men in their congregation to the detriment of the flock. Polemics and apologetics must have the proper place of a minor accent in the ministry, so that no error is left unexposed.

But the minister must expose error wisely, forthrightly, humbly, compellingly, not by lording it over the sheep (2 Tim. 4:1–2; 1 Pet. 5:2–3).

The rest of the interview will be posted next week.

INTERVIEW - The Authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:30:23 GMT

The history of the Church is quite simply the history of unlikely heroes who God raises up to meet the challenges of the hour. It was a great delight for me to recently spend some time with two such heroes—Dr. Andrew Sach and Dr. Steve Jeffery. They are both Anglican ordinands studying at Oak Hill Theological Seminary and yet, together with their new Principal-Elect, Dr. Mike Ovey, they have

The Agony of Deceit: An interview with Mike Horton, part 3

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:30:04 GMT

Reformed or conservative Christians are sometimes accused of having an unhealthy interest in controversy and polemics. Is this a fair comment?

In my view, the short answer, unfortunately, is “yes.” We are often known more for what we’re against than by what we’re for.

In Acts 2, the church was identified by its devotion to the apostles’ teaching, the breaking of the bread, the fellowship, the prayers, and an intense evangelistic and missionary zeal. We read repeatedly throughout Acts not only that the Word of God was faithfully taught, but that it spread. Today, we are often pressed to choose between getting the gospel right and getting the gospel out. If the gospel is the good news that we say that it is: sinners reconciled to a holy God through the work of Christ alone, why shouldn’t we be the vanguard of outreach to the world?

I fear that it all comes down to sloth or laziness, and I include myself in that critique. Conservatives are often enthusiastic about the truth, but lazy about mission; progressives are often enthusiastic about mission and lazy about the truth.

Rick Warren, the popular California pastor, has reissued the familiar call for “deeds, not creeds.” But this is to say “law, not gospel”; command without promise; imperatives without indicatives. We need to put these together again. There is the triumphant announcement, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” “here is what you are in Christ,” followed by the “Therefore, go,” “do/do not,” etc. If we don’t get the message right, the mission is just some version of works-righteousness; if we don’t get the mission right, then we are thinking only of ourselves. The mission flows out of the message.

Of course, it has always been difficult for ministers to navigate in this passing evil age, but the good news is that Christ, by his Word and Spirit, has always been keeping his promise not only to preserve the church but beat down the gates of hell. Christ has already triumphed over Satan, death, and hell! That is the good news without which I could not muster the confidence to enter the pulpit or the classroom.

Whether young or old, ministers should, in my view, keep themselves acquainted with both the wisdom of the past and the currents of the day. Paul’s instruction to Timothy is not only to preach the truth but to combat falsehood. Falsehood always has an element of truth.

Those who are attracted to spiritual fads and fashions often find a few good reasons for it. We have to appreciate the draw of these intellectual and popular movements. Again, this takes a lot of time and energy in study. However, it is indispensable for our ministry.

What is the best way for a busy pastor to keep himself informed of contemporary theological issues when he knows that there is simple not enough time to read all the books. Could you name some of these critical issues and the best material on them?

I’ll restrict myself to issues of greatest relevance to evangelical and Reformed churches. The Emerging Church movement is one example. Reacting against both fundamentalism and the megachurch movement, many younger Christians are looking for a richer and more varied experience, a mosaic that reflects not only our increasingly diverse cultures but denominations and traditions.

In practice, this often means smaller gatherings in which worshipers move from station-to-station: an area with candles and icons, another with a prayer labyrinth, another for sitting on pillows or couches to hear someone lead a discussion. There is considerable variety in theological orientation among these groups, but it is common to hear readings not only from ancient and medieval Christian writers but from Thomas Merton, Buddhists, and a variety of poets or novelists. The ambiance is definitely “mystical,” in sharp contrast to the theatrics of their megachurch youth.

Brian McLaren is the best-known leader in this movement. In my estimation (confirmed by some leaders within the movement itself), McLaren’s eclecticism and openness are mostly directed toward mysticism (Christian and Buddhist), Anabaptism, “high-church” traditions, and Liberalism. He is sharply critical of conservative evangelicalism and especially of confessional Reformed theology.

Following McLaren, many in this circle claim that their movement is “postmodern,” although this claim seems to me as dubious as the term “postmodern” is ambiguous. I have participated in discussions with McLaren and others in this group, with results published as The Church in Emerging Culture, ed. Leonard Sweet (Zondervan, 2003). There is also D. A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church, (Zondervan, 2005)

The series of works by David Wells, beginning with No Place for Truth, (Eerdmans, 1993), illuminates the challenges of our time more broadly. I have written or edited a number of books along similar lines, but it would be out of place, especially for a British audience, to push my own books! Nevertheless, I might mention the series I have been writing that tries to bring classic Reformed theology into conversation with contemporary issues and resources.

The first volume, Covenant and Eschatology, is a prolegomenon of sorts; Lord and Servant treats the doctrine of God, humanity, and christology (including the atonement in the light of contemporary criticisms); Covenant and Salvation (available in September 2007) treats justification and union with Christ in conversation with the New Perspective on Paul and Radical Orthodoxy.

I’m finishing up the last volume, People and Place, exploring ecclesiology. The series is published by Westminster John Knox (WJK). I might also mention James K. A. Smith’s Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? (Baker Academic, 2006). Sometimes there is an over-reaction to “postmodernism” in our circles, as if modernity did us any favors! While one might not agree with everything, Smith is alert to some of the dangers of postmodern thinking while pointing up its insights.

How can a minister keep himself from bitterness, pride, and cynicism as he faces controversy?

Only the Spirit of Christ can produce within us the fruit of the Spirit. I wish I could say that I yielded to the Spirit’s guidance in eliminating the fruit of the flesh, but I am in need of daily forgiveness and repentance on these as on other points.

However, it helps put things in perspective when I recall that the same grace that opened my eyes to the gospel keeps me growing in that faith and preserves me from many of the errors to which I am prone.

With Isaiah, I can only say, “I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips and dwell among a people of unclean lips.” When I am bitter, proud, our cynical, I am assuming the stance of the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable—even as I set myself up as a defender of the publican. What do we have that we have not been given?

The gospel is sufficient not only for our justification but for our sanctification as well. As we are saved by grace, we grow by grace and this leaves no room for pride.

Besides being sin, pride is a waste of time. I still have plenty of error to unlearn and truth to learn. The Christian life is a pilgrimage, not a pedestal.

Knowing that pastoral ministry involves proclaiming peace and waging war against the strongholds of false doctrine in the church, who in your estimation has set a good model for younger ministers to emulate in these areas?

In addition to numerous colleagues, God has richly blessed me with friends and mentors like James Boice, R. C. Sproul, Robert Godfrey, David Wells, and J. I. Packer.

From church history, I think especially of Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Anselm; of course, Luther and Calvin are my main heroes, but I think also of Bucer, Knox, and Cranmer as well as the Puritans (especially Perkins, Sibbes, and Owen).

More recently, there has been the witness of people like Orr, Hodge, Warfield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, and Stott. However, it’s increasingly difficult to point to a particular tradition (as implied above) today as producing the main lot of exemplary pastors and theologians.

Ironically, some friends like Tom Oden and William Willimon (mainline Methodists) defend the doctrine of justification with more rigor and penetrating insight against contemporary detractors than some Reformed people.

In an age of confessional confusion, labels do not seem quite as relevant as they once were.

More from Carl Trueman

Tue, 22 May 2007 14:50:08 GMT

At Martin Downes' blog.

Trueman Interview Pt 3

Wed, 23 May 2007 12:15:16 GMT

At Against Heresies.

Sin in High Places: An interview with Carl Trueman, part 1

Mon, 21 May 2007 07:30:15 GMT

Over the next few days I will be posting my interview with Carl R. Trueman, professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia,

As you reflect back on your student years and involvement in conservative evangelical organisations in the UK, were there men who started out with evangelical convictions who later moved away from the gospel? How did you cope with that?

I always find it hard to speak or to write about such things. It is sad to see friends fall. Of course, I have known a few such figures; and, Martin, we have both worked together enough in the past to share a number of friends who are now nowhere in terms of orthodoxy and their Christian walk. In my experience, such friends and acquaintances have fallen into two broad categories. There are those who fell into serious immorality, homosexuality, adultery, bitterness of spirit, etc., and whose views seemed to shift almost as a result of the practical moral move, a way of getting out from under the demands of truth. Then there are a few who really do seem to be driven by intellectual crises and problems.

How have I coped? The fall of a friend or a respected mentor is hard to stomach; but there are a number of things which help us to understand these tragedies. I have a high view of human sin. I know that, left to themselves and placed in the perfect storm of circumstances, anyone is capable of anything. Remembering this basic fact means that, though we can be disappointed and surprised by individual falls, we should not see them as failures of the gospel but failures of sinful human nature. It is what I jokingly call Zen-Calvinism: once you are enlightened about and understand the universal power of sin, you can never be wrong-footed by the fall of another. Further, it should also prevent us from standing in pharisaic judgment on such friends. Sin needs rebuking and, if necessary, church discipline; but we do this in a spirit of love to God and out of a desire to see the fallen one restored.

I must say, I do feel great personal sadness and some responsibility when I think of particular friends who have fallen and not, so far, returned to the church. It is always sobering to ask ourselves if we have failed as Christian friends in such circumstances: could we have been more available? Should we have intervened at an earlier stage when we saw the start of a self-destructive path? Why were we not the kind of people to whom our friends were able to turn with their struggles and doubts? Did we preach the gospel to our friends as we should have done? There are names I won’t mention of friends who have fallen and who will always lie somewhat heavy on my conscience. Of course, everyone must take responsibility for their own actions and thoughts, but such questions are helpful in preventing self-righteous smugness relative to the failings of others.

Have you ever been drawn toward any views or movements that time has shown to have been unhelpful or even dangerous theologically?

I dallied briefly with Barthianism and then with Berkouwer’s theology in the late 1980s. Studying at the University of Aberdeen, I found the dominant theology to be Barthianism refracted through the writings of the Torrance brothers. Berkouwer’s The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth was helpful in giving me a critical handle on Barth and helping to free me from that particular dead-end; and his Studies in Dogmatics also gave me an appreciation for doing theology in a self-consciously historical manner. However, as my knowledge of confessional Reformed Orthodoxy developed in the early 1990s, through reading widely in the primary texts and the relevant secondary literature, and as I came to grips with the wider sweep of Western theology as I had to teach courses on medieval thought and on Thomas Aquinas at the University of Nottingham, I began to see how Berkouwer too had absorbed a lot of Barth and how this distorted his reception of theological tradition. At that point, I started to develop a much more carefully worked out confessional theology.

In practice, the theologies of Barth and Berkouwer have really proved sterile as ecclesiastical programs. The best one can say is that they failed to stop the collapse of vital church life in Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. For all of their criticisms of the 'static' God of orthodoxy, Barthian preaching is, in my experience, sterile and dull, and fails miserably to confront listeners with the God of the Bible. I personally know of no church which has really grown through Barthian preaching.

So I would summarise by saying that I am very grateful to Barth and Berkouwer for directing me to serious dogmatics, for fuelling my interest in theology and doctrinal history, and for raising big and important questions in my mind; and I still enjoy reading them on occasion for the tremendous intellectual stimulation and challenge they provide; but I have ultimately found little of any real use, theological or practical, in the actual content of their theologies.

How should a minister keep his heart, mind, and will from theological error?

No magic bullet here. The minister needs a good theological education, and then needs to maintain the basic disciplines of the Christian life – prayer and Bible reading, love to God and to neighbour. Of course, the minister does not sit under the preaching of the Word week by week, so accountability is even more of a problem for him than for others in the congregation. Presbyterianism has a structure of ministerial accountability in its church courts, but these are often impersonal and rather procedural gatherings. Even the Presbyterian minister still needs to make himself self-consciously accountable to others, a small group of one or more intimates.

One of the secrets of great leadership in any walk of life is to place those close to you who are not simply yes-men but who are prepared to be honest with you when they see you making a mistake. This is absolutely critical in the church: having true friends who speak the truth in love is vital.

I think of church leaders who simply became such objects of adulation by their people and by the wider evangelical world that, when they fell, it was clear that they had simply come to be regarded as too big to be held accountable. Nobody dared call them to account; nobody ever even suspected they needed to be held to account. I can think of others who simply started to believe their own propaganda and saw any and every criticism as a personal attack. Such people were disasters waiting to happen; and their problem was that they lost sight of the basics of the Christian life and made themselves accountable to no-one. And I am always amazed at the cronies such people manage to gather around themselves: there is always someone willing to stroke the ego of such types, to tell them how wonderful they are whatever shenanigans they get up to; yet a true friend knows the necessity of speaking the truth out of love in all circumstances.

Down the Pub with Lane Tipton

Mon, 14 May 2007 23:37:50 GMT

A conversation over a pint outside a London pub on a sunny spring day with Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminster Theological Seminary. Covering the relationship between the Bible and systematic theology, union with Christ in the New Testament and Calvin, justification and the New Perspective on Paul, and how to engage in theological disputes with godliness and humility. Highly informative, edifying, and easy to listen to.

Interview with Francis Beckwith

Wed, 09 May 2007 18:35:03 GMT

David Neff interviews Frank Beckwith.

Ten Questions for Expositors - Anyabwile

Wed, 09 May 2007 05:25:05 GMT

It has been a real joy thus far to share with you the “Ten Questions for Expositors” series. We take time out today with Thabiti Anyabwile. Following his conversion (read “From Mecca to Calvary”), Thabiti served with Capitol Hill Baptist Church before moving to pastor First Baptist Church Grand Cayman. He has recently authored the book “The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors” and regularly updates his excellent blog, Pure Church.

1. Where do you place the importance of preaching in the grand scheme of church life?
I would rank preaching Christ and Him crucified as the most important commitment of the ministry. Everything else builds upon the exposition of God’s Word. Giving attention to God’s Word in the public gathering of the church is the main activity. It’s where the people of God are most explicitly and perhaps intentionally shaped or formatively disciplined into the maturity of Christ.

2. In a paragraph, how did you discover your gifts in preaching?
I was asked to speak at a “youth day” event at a church in my home town. I thought it was going to be an event after the morning service with 20-30 teenagers in the church basement. When I arrived, I found out that I was the guest preacher for the morning service! I tweaked my planned talk from John 4 and did the best I could. A little lady came up to me afterwards and asked, “Where are you in your walk?” I had no idea what she meant and mumbled something like “I’m trying to grow in the Lord.” She clarified: “No… I think you may be called to the ministry.” I put that behind me thinking she meant well but was probably a bit overly enthusiastic. Soon after, a number of people began commenting in much the same way this little lady had, expressing appreciation for what they regarded as speaking gifts whenever I would lead a Bible study, small group, or some other address. So, it was through the saints that those gifts became evident to me.

3. How long (on average) does it take you to prepare a sermon?
Currently, I devote two full days to sermon preparation—Thursday and Friday. I’ll generally spend about twenty hours over those two days and a few hours through the week reading the text and making notes.

4. Is it important to you that a sermon contain one major theme or idea? If so, how do you crystallise it?
I think the sermon should contain the major themes or points of the text being considered. I learned from Mark Dever (though he is not to be blamedJ) to preach texts of varying lengths… sometimes a few verses, sometimes a chapter, sometimes a couple of chapters. When you do that, different things emerge for the preacher and the audience. The unity and flow of an argument, connections between themes and ideas all come into focus in various ways. Sometimes that lends itself to a sermon with one major theme or idea; sometimes it suggests a couple of major ideas for a sermon. I’d rather the number of themes or ideas from the text to determine the structure of my sermon than my “sermon framework/approach” to drive the number of themes or ideas I focus on in a text.

5. What is the most important aspect of a preacher’s style and what should he avoid?
I think it’s probably most important that a preacher be himself… whatever that means stylistically. Piper is Piper; MacArthur is MacArthur; Stott is Stott; Lloyd-Jones was Lloyd-Jones. I suppose Thabiti is Thabiti, though as a young preacher I’m still trying to figure out what that means. A man should be comfortable in his own skin as he preaches. Was it Lloyd-Jones who referred to preaching as “personality on fire.” That strikes me as right. Be ablaze with God’s truth and trust that the Lord means to mediate that truth, in part, through the distinctive ways He has shaped you in personality. Next to that, I think probably plainness is important. Having said that, though, I think the thing to be avoided is making your personality (humor, etc.) the core of your preaching. One can be all style and no substance. And there is the terribly frightening prospect of building an audience on a man’s personality, even creating a cult of personality and celebrity. That must be one of the most grotesque things to be avoided: preaching yourself while you should be lifting up the Savior.

6. What notes, if any, do you use?
I take a full manuscript into the pulpit. I’ll probably deliver 85% of it. I think I’m a better preacher from an outline or extemporaneously, but as a young preacher I write a full manuscript. I do this because I’m concerned about two things: 1) I want to be theologically more precise in my preaching, perhaps more precise than I would be without a manuscript. There is probably some insecurity here that grows out of the fact that I’m not seminary trained and as a former muslim (having been in such gross theological error during that time) I am “hyper” about theological accuracy. 2) Some of the most influential and prominent men in the history of the African American church left almost no record of their preaching ministries. That’s a great tragedy. I don’t think my sermons will be remembered as anything spectacular, but I do want to leave something that helps fill this void.

7. What are the greatest perils that preacher must avoid?
McCheyne is right, I think, when he says, “My people have no greater need than my own holiness.” So, a failure to live a holy life is peril that must be avoided. Related to that: laziness; unfaithfulness; failure to watch his life and doctrine; and, a failure to watch over the sheep entrusted to his care. A man can mask a multitude of deficiencies and sins with a strong public preaching gift. If he takes that wide road it will lead to the destruction of his ministry, and to great harm among the sheep. So let us not leave off holiness and integrity.

8. How do you fight to balance preparation for preaching with other important responsibilities (eg. pastoral care, leadership responsibilities)
I’m blessed with a wonderful administrative assistant who protects my time really well. We maintain a basic plan to the week that intends some measure of balance, but we’re always tweaking it. Mondays are days that are largely wide open for scheduling appointments of various sorts (counselling, visitation, etc.). This, for me, has been a good transition from the Lord’s Day activities into the routine for the week. Tuesdays are reserved for reading and writing, a lot of which is in response to questions/needs in the congregation. Some Tuesday nights feature elders’ meetings. Wednesday mornings I prepare for Wednesday night Bible study. Wednesday afternoon are usually filled with staff meeting, service planning meeting, and other counselling appointments and misc. meetings. Thursday and Friday are sermon preparation. I try to have the sermon finished by 5:00pm on Friday so I can have time Friday evening and Saturday with the family. Thus far, the schedule has worked well for me. It means I have to say “no” to some things (especially a lot of evening meetings) and keep first things first. It doesn’t always work this way, but that’s the general approach.

9. What books on preaching, or exemplars of it, have you found most influential in your own preaching?
The first book I ever read on preaching is still my favourite: Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers. I also appreciate Edmund Clowney’s work, Preaching and Biblical Theology and Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. As examples go, I love reading Lloyd-Jones. My soul is positively strengthened when I listen to Piper. I could listen to Sinclair Ferguson all day. Mark Dever probably engages me intellectually more than anyone I can think of right now. Mark’s approach to application has been particularly helpful.

10. What steps do you take to nurture or encourage developing or future preachers?
Currently, I try to devote the church’s Sunday evening services to helping men discern and develop their gifts in preaching. I usually send them a short review of the sermon the next day, noting things I appreciated, asking questions or prompting them to think further about some point or another. Usually, though, I’m simply trying to encourage them in their preaching. Beyond this, I’m meeting with a couple of men and reading through good books on theology or the ministry, and suggesting various other resources like the 9Marks website or some of the preachers listed above.

Previously
* Tim Keller
* Philip Ryken
* Voddie Baucham
* Liam Goligher
* Vaughan Roberts

——————–
Workman’s Toolbox
* Tomb of Herod the great found?
* Speaking of Thabiti Anyabwile, he’s thanking God for CJ Mahaney.
*Mohler vs Piper on Singleness
* Tim Challies is live blogging the Basics Conference, including Voddie Baucham’s session on Preaching to Postmoderns.

Reading Interview with Challies

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:40:12 GMT

Joshua Sowin interviews Tim Challies.

Interesting link on Westminster Assembly

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:35:31 GMT

Readers might be interested in following this link to an interview with Chad van Dixhoorn on the Westminster Project. The file can be downloaded and listened to later if needs be. The interview lasts about 20 mins. [Following the interview column on the right hand side of the page and currently it is number 9].