This Saturday is for My Last Times-Guardian Article

Alas, I found out this week through the back door, so to speak (the former editor, who I ran into in the grocery store), that the Canyon Lake Times-Guardian, after almost 40 years of publishing, has closed its door. The following is the final article I wrote for the T-G.

In the time ahead, I will be checking out the limited number of other weekly newspapers in the area, to see if any would like me to write for them. Until that happens, I will not be posting on Saturdays, unless I come up with some other approach to what I would like to make available on Saturdays.

“The Grave Couldn’t Hold It!”

Over the course of my 30-plus years in ministry, I have done some 125 funerals. I must admit, however, that the graveside service I did this past Saturday afternoon was completely unique in my experience. When it came time to lower the coffin, it would not fit into the grave!

Allow me to give you some more information that will help you understand what happened. Almost a year and a half ago, I received a phone call from a voice from the past. He informed me that a man I knew, his father, when I pastored at Canyon Lake from 1977 to 1983, was near death. He asked at that point if I could be available to do the funeral, whenever it took place. My reply was that, yes, if I could possibly work it out, I would certainly be glad to take part.

By God’s grace and the changing of some difficult habits, his father lived another year and a half, then died peacefully last Tuesday in his sleep at home. When I was contacted initially last week, the memorial service was scheduled for Saturday, but, for some unknown reason, the graveside had been set for Sunday afternoon. That, of course, presented a real difficulty for me, since I needed to be back Saturday evening, in order to preach on Sunday morning.

Thankfully, they were able to get the graveside changed to Saturday afternoon. But, I suspect that might have contributed to the “ill-fitting” grave site. Why? Because the grave had to be dug on much shorter notice than if it had remained on Sunday afternoon.

Another factor almost surely contributed. The funeral plots at the rural cemetery west of Madisonville were of slender dimensions, making the digging of the grave within the plot a much more meticulous task than at most cemeteries.

After the graveside service was completed, the workers began to lower the casket into the grave… and it would not do down. As a result, after trying to make some small adjustments, the workers finally retrieved a couple of shovels and, after another hour or so, finally got the job done. So, after some distress—plus the discomfort of standing out in the sweltering heat-humidity combination of that area near Houston—there was a “happy ending.”

On the way back home Saturday evening, I began thinking about this highly unusual circumstance… and my mind took things in a somewhat different direction. I thought about how Jesus’ body was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and fully secured by Roman soldiers. But, on the third day, that first Easter morning, the grave could not hold Him. He was raised from the dead, victorious over sin on the Cross and over death in His resurrection.

The “happy ending” in my friend’s case was that his father’s body was finally able to be buried… until Christ comes to resurrect his body (as he will certainly do; 1 Corinthians 15:23). Such an everlasting “happy ending” for all of us is assured if you have trusted Jesus Christ as your Savior. When you look into a grave and stare death in the face, where do you stand with Jesus?

Coming Tuesday: “Looking Over My Shoulder (VI)”

Looking over My Shoulder (V)

I have no clue how this did not get posted Thursday. Sorry!

(Note: For reasons related to time constraints, I am going to wait to present the proof for the “integrity” [i.e., unity] of Philippians until my posts next Tuesday and Thursday. Thank you for your understanding!)

Practically speaking, why does it even matter if Philippians was originally one letter or two or three? Think about it. What if someone tinkered with your correspondence and turned two or three of your emails into one without your permission? How would you feel?

Maybe you are thinking, “Well, if they were all good emails and didn’t really distort my thinking, what’s the problem?” Perhaps you look at things that way. But, I am a writer and it bothers me a lot when someone edits my stuff that I have not given permission to do so. You see, when I write it, I have my purpose in mind for what I write. When someone else gets into the process editorially, they are inevitably going to shape it to their ends.

That gets us to the issue of “authorial intent.” Simply put, all Scripture has dual authorship: God, who inspired the content; and the human author, whose intelligence, personality and vocabulary He used to write it down.

If some other human being later messed with the Divine-Human product of Philippians, what we have in the New Testament is not what God inspired… and, thus, does not deserve to be called Scripture. Even if that person thought the product was vastly improved from Paul originally wrote, it was not his (or her) right to “play God” in editing Philippians. At least, that’s how I see it.

But, somebody might say, “What about Philippians 2:5-11? What if it was originally a hymn or a doctrinal statement–whether Paul wrote it or not? Would that not mess up your idea of inspiration just as much?”

Not as I see it. It is one thing to obviously quote an existing document–which Paul most certainly does, e.g., in 1 Cor. 14 (“Bad company corrupts good morals”) and Titus 1 (“Cretans are always liars and lazy gluttons”). It is quite another to present a document as important as a book of Scripture as if it had written in a certain way, only to find it was fused together from two or three original mini-letters.

In my view, this is a major ethical problem. Some people see it as no big deal that a book would use a big name author (in this case, Paul) to get it in the Bible, although somebody else was responsible for its final form. I see it as deception. Call me old-fashioned. I would be rather take that criticism than to be so “broad-minded” that I start playing fast and loose with the inspiration of Scripture.

For now, Selah and Amen.

Coming Saturday: “My Last Times-Guardian article… and Why”

Looking over My Shoulder (IV)

The most basic issue of Introduction a biblical commentary will treat is authorship. For some New Testament books, this is a more difficult subject. For example, each of the Gospels is, technically, anonymous, since none of the four lists the name of the author. Hebrews is even more difficult, given the widely-varying speculation as to its authorship.

Comparatively speaking, the authorship of Philippians is fairly clear-cut. The name of “Paul” is clearly stated–as the first word in the Greek text. There are also a number of personal details stated that fit well with what is known of Paul’s life from elsewhere (e.g., 1:12-26; 3:4-6).

When stacked upside some of the other traditional Pauline letters, such as Colossians and the Pastoral Epistles, there is very little doubting of Paul’s authorship of Philippians, even among the most liberal biblical critics. However, there is another issue that comes up very frequently in the scholarly literature: the “integrity” of the text of the letter as we have it in our Bibles.

What is meant by “integrity” here? Philippians is viewed as having textual “integrity” if it can be proved that it was originally written by Paul in its current biblical form. You see, there are not a few critics who think that what we call Philippians may have actually begun as two or three separate mini-letters.

The two-letter view sees a major change in the tone of the epistle at 3:2, after, oddly, it uses the term “Finally” in 3:1, only about halfway through the letter. So, from 3:2 (and possibly 3:1b) through 4:9 is considered a different letter by Paul to the Philippians that was “stitched together” with the original letter (1:1-3:1, 4:10-23) at some later point.

The three-letter view basically agrees with the two-letter view, except that it also sees 4:10-20 as yet another short letter by Paul. It is usually referred to by scholars as Paul’s “thank you note.”

There are various ways to answer these speculative attacks on the “integrity” of Philippians. The two most commonly used approaches by evangelicals are: 1) the history of the Greek text of Philippians; and 2) a comparison of “change of tone” and the use of certain key terminology in Philippians and elsewhere in Paul’s letters. These will be discussed in my next post.

What has been largely overlooked is an appeal to a unified literary structure of the book. In other words, if it can be shown that Philippians evidences a clearly unified structure for its entire four chapters, then it is virtually impossible that it was originally two or three smaller epistles that were later put together and treated as one letter. As will be seen next time, this can actually be done in two different, and complementary ways.

Coming Thursday: “Looking over My Shoulder (V)”

Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles… a Day Early

As usual, the following is my weekly article for the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian. But, it is a day early this week, since I will be in Houston overnight tonight (Friday) to do a funeral tomorrow (Saturday) afternoon.

“V.B.S.”

By the time you read this, Comal Country Church will have completed its Vacation Bible School for 2008. While our numbers were not particularly large, I am happy to focus on the “quality” angle instead of “quantity.” What happens in the individual lives and families of children is what truly matters most.

Are you aware of how Vacation Bible School came to be? Even though I had been involved in one or another V.B.S. at various times since I was a small child, it was not until I did some research on the matter that I understood its origin.

In 1894, a former school teacher in Rosedale , Illinois named D.T. Miles decided to start a daily Bible school during the Summer months. It lasted four weeks.

Over time, the occasional Summer Bible schools became more frequent. The number of churches and other ministries choosing to do vacation Bible school continued to grow. V.B.S. had officially become a movement by 1922, when the World Association of Daily Vacation Bible School was begun.

It is also interesting to see how V.B.S. has continued to adapt to the needs of the culture around us. Although our church is still going with the traditional morning format (our schedule runs 9:00 a.m. to noon ), Monday through Friday, more and more churches are doing V.B.S. at night, because of parents who are not available to bring their kids during work hours. Some of those are still running only one week, Monday through Friday evenings. Others, however, are scheduling the same night five weeks in a row.

In 11 years of full-time pastoral ministry—not to mention several more as an interim pastor while I was teaching, I have had the opportunity to observe quite a few churches doing V.B.S. Each has been fun in its own way. But, I freely admit that the best part is always when various children come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Such faith appears to be very special for the Lord Jesus, given His emphasis on the need for “childlike faith” by anyone who wishes to enter His kingdom (Matthew 18:4).

I did not become a Christian through either Sunday School or Vacation Bible School as a child. If I had, I might not have some of the emotional and spiritual scars in my life, which have been painful to deal with over the years. But, the sad part is that I could easily have become a Christian through V.B.S., given that I attended at least one V.B.S. every Summer of my childhood.

What happened? Or, better, why did I not become a Christian during one of those V.B.S. sessions? First, something very good did happen. I memorized many Bible verses—at least 250 —because my grandmother was the superintendent of V.B.S. every year I was a child. She “bribed” the kids, especially my siblings and me, to learn Bible verses with candy and quarters (and quarters would actually buy something back in the late 1950s and early ‘60s!). After I did become a Christian in college, knowing those Bible verses was a tremendous advantage for me.

Still, it could have happened much earlier. Tragically, I was not in a church where you were asked if you had trusted Jesus Christ as your Savior. Far too much went unasked, being either overlooked or assumed. We must never make assumptions about the ultimate issue of “life and death”. Your eternal destiny rides on your response to that question: “Have you trusted Jesus?” You must take it seriously and respond in childlike faith… or face the never-ending consequences of your unbelief.

PS- I am aware that the last several paragraphs are indented, while the earlier part of the article is not. But, I cannot get the format to cooperate. To you perfectionists, I offer my heartfelt apologies!

Coming Tuesday: “Looking over My Shoulder (IV)”

Looking over My Shoulder (III)

Why don’t commentaries and study Bibles just dive straight into an explanation of the text, instead of having you wade through all the up-front introductory material? The answer is one of the most basic principles of interpretation: “A text without a context is a pretext.”

You see, the introductory section provides you, the reader, with the context for understanding the book in regard to key historical, theological and interpretative issues. If the introduction were not there, to a very large degree you would be “flying blind” as you initially approached the Bible book in question. Even after reading the introductory segment carefully, you may not fully grasp the ins and outs of the biblical text when you get to it. But, believe me, you will be in much shape than the virtually clueless position you were in before the introduction opened your eyes in at least certain crucial areas.

The part of the introduction that is given over to discussions of who the author was, who the original audience was, the date the book was written and what unique issues might have been at work in the background on either end of the communication process more or less approximate what is meant by the well-trafficked German phrase Sitz im Leben (“life setting”). My answer to the broad question “Why did God give us the Bible?” is “God gave Scripture into historical time that we might draw timeless principles for timely application.” These introductory discussions attempt to get at the initial “historical time” aspect of that answer as best as it can be done.

Of course, there are numerous cases in which it is pointless to be dogmatic, given that fairly strong conflicting evidence exists. For example, although I think it is more likely that Paul wrote Philippians from his imprisonment in Rome, it is intellectually dishonest to say that he could not have been in Caesarea or possibly even Ephesus. The same is true for the ongoing debate over the nature of the Colossian philosophical heresy. In both cases, the winds of scholarship blow back and forth, seemingly changing fairly significantly at least every decade or so.

Now, I would like to make my case here for two other areas in which some commentaries have introductory discussions and some don’t–apparently not thinking the areas important enough to treat them. The first of these is the structure of the book and the second is its theology.

The reason I think a discussion of structure is crucial is because the literary outline of the book is its “big picture” skeleton. The old saying goes that “You can’t see the forest for the trees.” That happens with commentaries in which there is no ongoing sense of the map of the “forest” as you dig a hole to China in all the nuances of the exegetical “trees.” An ongoing awareness of the structure of the book is thus a needed balance in keeping in mind the various levels of context of the passage at hand.

The reason I think the book’s theological teaching is important is because a skillful presentation of the biblical theology of the book often shows you why it is included in the Bible. Though there are numerous similarities between different books of Scripture, no two are exactly alike. It is those unique theological features that at least partially account for its canonical status, as opposed, say, to the two other letters that Paul apparently wrote to the Corinthians beyond what we call 1 and 2 Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 2 Cor. 2:4, 9).

For reasons often known only to the author or in-house (or series) editors (i.e., unless they see fit to share the rationale somewhere in a prefatory essay), some introductory sections for commentaries are short to the point of seeming clipped, while others seem to go on forever. I strongly hope that our treatments of of the relevant background factors in regard to Philippians, Colossians and Philemon will strike a healthy balance in between.

Coming Friday: “Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles… a Day Early”

Looking over My Shoulder (II)

How do you prepare to write a “critical” commentary on the Bible?  I’ve never read an article on this and, frankly, I’m not sure there is one right way (though I can definitely conceive that there are wrong avenues to pursue, not to mention simply failing to be adequately prepared).  But, somewhere in the mix of what has to be done is the side-by-side immersing of yourself in the book(s) of Scripture on which you are focusing and the relevant literature pertaining to that book.

I must admit to a pet peeve in this area, though.  From having read more than my fair share of critical commentaries, I must say that it appears to me that many, if not most, of the authors have invested the vast majority of their time and energy in the scholarly literature, not the Scriptures.  Now, this is fairly understandable if you are liberal in your theological perspective.  But, at least to me it is troubling if you are an evangelical who believes that the Bible is inspired and the final authority for faith and practice.

Yes, a true critical commentary is going to reflect a careful awareness to the currents of scholarly thought in regard to the book(s) on which you are commenting.  However, like currents in the ocean, such views coninue to come and go at the same time that God’s Written Word is “… forever… firmly fixed in heaven” (Pss. 119:89).

From my extensive sampling of critical commentaries over the past 35 years or so, I can say that the “enough, but not too much” rule should be enforced by publishers.  What I mean by that is there should be enough discussion of key scholarly issues and viewpoints that it obvious that the true highpoints–and recent “hot spots,” so to speak–of the history of interpretation are not being ignored.  On the other hand, too much discussion makes for a lot to “wade” through on the way to “the good stuff” (i.e., the ‘bottom line’ conclusions… if you ever get there. 

In that regard, I have read a number of British scholars over the years who wrote huge commentaries in which they discussed in depth every known viewpoint on each passage in church history, but, on the really tough passages, their own exegetical decisions were not to be found.  In other words, their grasp of the history of debate over the problem passages was encyclopedic, but, when the dust settled, they provided no wise guidance for their readers–just a full, and often quite confusing, range of options.

Because of time limitations in a very busy week (including V.B.S. at our church), I’m going to have to cut it off here.  I’ll pick up at this point in the next post.

Coming Thursday: “Looking over My Shoulder (III)”

This Saturday is for a Different Kind of Article

(It is a sad thing to get older and watch your formerly wonderful memory start playing tricks on you.  In this case, I can’t remember what I wrote my newspaper article on this week, to find it in my computer files.  So, instead of driving myself crazy, I’m just going to post one of my entries in the recent-released Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, edited by Ergun Caner and Ed Hindson.  Please note that this material is copyrighted by Harvest House [2008]).  Enjoy!

HOLY SPIRIT, ROLE IN APOLOGETICS.  It is certainly possible to be involved in apologetics without the power of the Holy Spirit.  However, it is impossible to be effective in apologetics without the work of the Spirit in both the apologist and the hearer. 

This can be discerned initially simply by considering the most well-known verse in the Bible about apologetics.  1 Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account of the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (NASB).  The Greek term translated “defense” is apologia, from which the English word “apologetics” is derived.  Sadly, though, many with great zeal for the much-needed ministry of apologetics seemingly ignore the last phrase of 1 Peter 3:15, thus overlooking the expected attitudes with which biblical apologetics is to be carried out: “with gentleness and reverence.”  What is the source of these attitudes?

APOLOGETICS WITH GENTLENESS AND REVERENCE

            In the process of doing apologetic ministry, it is very easy to either get defensive or be offensive in regard to the person(s) with whom you are interacting.  Since mankind is not so objective as to overlook your attitudinal reactions, both defensiveness and giving offense can undermine your witness.

            This is where the end of 1 Peter 3:15 comes into play.  “Gentleness” (Greek prautetos), which should be the apologist’s attitude toward the hearer, is a fruit of the Holy Spirit’s work in the believer’s life (Galatians 5:23).  Thus, the control of the Spirit is needed for the attitude of the apologist, which speaks volume by itself, to be right.

            The NASB wording “reverence” renders phobos, which is most commonly translated “fear.”  This obviously does not mean to be afraid of the person to whom you are speaking.  Instead, in the context of 1 Peter 3:15, it could be taken as having the shade of meaning of “reverence” (as, e.g., NASB) or “respect” (as, e.g., HCSB).  If the intended nuance here is “reverence,” it is probably restating the first part of verse 15 in seeing apologetics as properly requiring a reverent attitude toward the Lord: “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.”  If the better understanding is “respect,” though, it apparently means that the Christian apologist should approach the hearer with general respect, even if only for these two reasons: 1) he or she is a person for whom Jesus Christ died (John 3:16); and 2) he or she is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).  Such respect must include specifically respectful words, because of the great potential spiritual damage done by a tongue out of control (James 3:1-10).

APOLOGETICS WITH LOVE

            The late apologist Francis Schaeffer aptly referred to love as “the final apologetic.”  He noted that, long after a person rejects even the most effectively presented intellectual arguments, they may still be wrestling with their inability to explain away your godly life, especially your love for other Christians (John 13:34-35).  In addition, if anything, they will have an even more difficult time getting beyond your love for them.

            Love also is a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22) and it no coincidence that it is listed first among the fruit.  It is the obedience required by both the first and second commandments (Matthew 22:34-40) in our relationship to God and to all other people, which includes non-Christians.  Fortunately, the apologist does not have to force love by an act of the will toward a very unlovable skeptic who is attempting to disprove the gospel or some other key aspect of Christianity.  That is where the fruit of the Spirit that is love comes into play.  If the apologist walks by faith (Galatians 5:5-6), in the power of the Holy Spirit, he or she will not “carry out the desire of the flesh” (5:16, NASB) in that apologetics interaction.  Seen from the angle of what so often goes wrong without the Spirit’s empowering of the apologetics encounter, such interaction easily tends to deteriorate into fleshly “strife… outbursts of anger, disputes…” and the like (5:20).

            Just how important love is in the apologetic enterprise is seen in the ongoing reality that many people have come to faith in Christ through the most elementary gospel presentations of some person who knew little about even the most basic Christian apologetics.  Now, admittedly, sometimes the person(s) coming to saving faith in Christ are like ripe fruit ready to be picked, which is itself the work of the Holy Spirit.  However, it is not that uncommon for a loving witness to engage a person with numerous questions who, in turn, is willing to put them off until they meet a more apologetically prepared believer or even wait until after their saving faith.  Why?  Because, as Schaeffer said, the love they feel (which ultimately comes from the Holy Spirit; Galatians 5:22) woos them powerfully and soothes what might otherwise be decisive concerns.  Eventually, of course, the questions will be asked and answered.  Without question, though, the supernatural attraction of the Holy Spirit does often dramatically simplify the role of apologetics in the witnessing situation.

PREPARATION FOR APOLOGETICS IN THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT

            One of the most concentrated portions of the Bible dealing with the ministry of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant is found in the Upper Room Discourse (John 14-16).  When Jesus expounded the Spirit’s ministry on the night before His betrayal and crucifixion, the Spirit did not yet indwell His disciples (John 14:16-17).  As a result, the apostles did not yet have the spiritual equipment to understand what He was talking about until after Pentecost (16:13).

            Though all Christians today are indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the time of their initial saving faith, there is still a need for the Spirit’s empowering in the preparation for the apologetic task.  Jesus’ words in John 14:26 make that clear: “… The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things… .”  Whatever scriptural information is needed in doing apologetics, the Spirit will provide.  When Jesus says “He will guide you into all the truth” in John 16:13, He apparently means all the revelation that God has seen fit to reveal.  Thus, the Spirit originally guided the apostles and other writers in producing the Written Word.  Now, he guides those who study and prepare for such important ministries as apologetics into “all the truth” they will need to defend the faith.

APOLOGETICS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SPIRIT

            The Greek word translated “Helper” by the NASB in the various passages referring to the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room Discourse is parakletos.  It means, literally, “one called alongside to help.”  The word was also sometimes rendered “mediator,” “intercessor” or “one who appears in another’s behalf.”

            What do each of these nuances of meaning have in common that is helpful for understanding the role of the Holy Spirit in apologetics?  Each reflects a kind of partnership, though each approaches the partnering from a somewhat different angle.

Suffice it to say that the apologist’s partnership with the Spirit might require help from any of these angles to be most effective in differing situations.  We do not have to witness or present various proofs about Christ or Christianity alone.  If we choose to rely upon the Spirit, He is always there as the partner who will let us down.

THE APOLOGIST AS “CO-PILOT” TO THE SPIRIT IN WITNESS

            Nor should it be assumed that the apologist’s voice or written words is the only one being heard in the evangelistic situation or in defending some aspect of the Christian faith.  In fact, if anything, John 15:26 makes it quite clear that the Holy Spirit’s witness is ultimately primary: “When the Helper comes… He will bear witness of Me” (NASB).

            Does this mean that the Spirit, so to speak, does the talking or writing all by Himself?  Absolutely not!  John 15:27 concludes the thought: “And you will bear witness also… .”

            Why would Jesus place things in this order?  Most likely, it is said this way at least partly because human witnesses, especially those without a great deal of experience in evangelism or apologetics, tend to be afraid that their presentation will not be clear, or that they will forget something important.  That, of course, is possible.  However, knowing that the Holy Spirit is alongside and at work, witnessing in the unseen realm of the hearer’s mind and heart, is a great comfort. 

Therefore, when a person trusts Christ savingly, the human witness should not take as much credit, knowing that the Spirit was co-witnessing, and, without question, doing it more effectively.  On the other hand, if the person does not become a Christian, even if the human witness may give up or lose track of that person immediately, the Holy Spirit does not.  In fact, over time, the Spirit may come alongside one person doing evangelism or apologetics after another in planting and watering the gospel and biblical truth in the same unbeliever’s life.

THE SPIRIT’S EYE-OPENING ROLE AS THE HEARER’S CONVINCER

            It is critical for the evangelist/apologist to realize that nobody is going to be converted or convinced of the truthfulness of the particular biblical or theological issue in question without the effective work of the Holy Spirit.  To think that the human spokesperson must do the convincing and converting easily leads toward the ethical problem of manipulating the hearer, whether through emotions or other means.  Even worse, for the human witness/apologist to view himself or himself as the one doing the ultimate persuading is to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit. 

            Why is it not possible for the human presenting the gospel or defending the faith to truly be the persuader?  The Apostle Paul explains it this way: “… the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel…” (2 Corinthians 4:4, NASB).  In other words, Satan has somehow so dramatically affected the mental capability of the non-Christian that he or she is unable to grasp the gospel and be saved.  Therefore, if the Holy Spirit, whom Paul is discussing in this wider context (2 Corinthians 3), does not give spiritual sight to the spiritually blind unbeliever, that person will remain “dead” in his or her “trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1, NASB).

            This makes it obvious that by far the greatest advantage that the evangelist/ apologist has going for him or her is that the Spirit is ever at work convicting “the world of sin, and righteousness, and judgment” (John 16:8, NASB).   Perhaps it should be said that it is the Holy Spirit who is the apologist par excellence and that biblically balanced human witnesses/apologists are simply faithfully striving to be His most effective mouthpiece possible.

CONCLUSION

            As has been clearly seen, the person seeking to be engaged in apologetics simply cannot pursue his or her ministry aside from the power of the Holy Spirit and do so with biblical warrant or God-honoring effectiveness.  It is also fair to say that, if each apologetics situation occurs in a kind of courtroom setting, with the apologist acting as the defense attorney (1 Peter 3:15) for the gospel, Christ and the Scriptures, then the Holy Spirit must be considered the prosecuting attorney who comes alongside the apologist, and with omni-competence undertakes the process of lovingly convicting the unbeliever of their life-and-death need for a Savior (John 16:7-11).                                                                                                  A. Boyd Luter, Jr.

Bibliography: Bush, L. R., Classical Essays in Christian Apologetics, A.D. 100-1800 (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1983); Campbell-Jack, W., ed., New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006); Fahlbusch, E. et al, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 3 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999-2005); Geisler, N.L., Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999); Moreau, A.S. et al, eds., Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).

 

 

 

Looking over My Shoulder (I)

(Today is the first day of the rest of my life… beyond blogging primarily about the problems of the Southern Baptist Convention.  To say that I am not optimistic about what I have heard about what happened in Indianapolis is an understatement.  Sam Creed tells me that no less than the venerable Jimmy Draper says that things in the SBC are not just in decline, but “freefall.”  If I have understood Sam–and Dr. Draper–correctly, I would say “Amen” to the fact that he has stated the obvious, but also that which no other prominent current or recent SBC leader has had the courage and candor to say out loud.  Will other leaders have the courage to admit the same and attempt to do something to stop the status quo which is careening downhill toward a bad ending, sooner or later?  Enough of that…)

A project that I am now turning to full-force (which I should have done months ago!) is a commentary on Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, which I will co-author for an evangelical publisher in Scotland.  The following is the first draft of what will become–after significant revision, I’m sure–the “Preface” for that volume.  See whether you think the following features would be a balanced contribution and useful to you in ministry.

Since the (blank) series–I’ll leave that out until we’re a little further down the line–does not require particular features or for its authors to write within the confines of highly specific established form-style guidelines, there is considerable leeway for creativity in the process of producing a volume that is worthy of being called a (blank series) commentary.  Accordingly, we have chosen the following format for the commentary proper as being appropriate to accomplish what the heart of the concept of “mentor” is and which readers might have a right to expect.

-         At the beginning of each section of the text, we will provide our Original Translation from the Greek.  For this rendering, we will work from The Greek New Testament: Fourth Revised Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993).

-         Next, as needed, there will be selective Critical Notes.  Whether the focus is textual criticism (“lower criticism”) or any of a number of kinds of “higher criticism” issues, the issues will be succinctly treated in this section.

-         There will be a Contextual Overview provided at the beginning of each section.  That will provide the reader with the perspective of a general map of how that particular portion of the text fits into “the forest” of the wider flow of the book before delving into “the trees” of the detailed exegesis of each section.

-         The Exegetical Comments section will unpack the text in adequate depth to handle the issues encountered, but striving to do so in a readable manner.  It is believed that this approach will best serve the needs of the wider audience as a “mentor” for their study, teaching and preaching of the biblical text.  Occasional excurses will go into greater depth and detail in regard to what we deem particularly crucial issues.

-         Boyd has long answered the comprehensive question “Why did God give us the Scriptures?” with the following statement: “God gave the Bible into historical time that we might draw timeless principles for timely application.”  The first four features discussed above deal with the historical time aspect here (i.e., what has been traditionally referred to as “historical-grammatical exegesis”).  But, in our view, commentaries that truly seek to “mentor” should proceed further in setting forth Timeless Principles (i.e., biblical principles derived from the text that are equally true for all readers of Scripture in all times, not just for the original audience).  This will be done in brief after the exegesis, along with crisp explanations for why we think the principles we lay out are valid.

-         Next, based on the timeless principles we set forth, we will also lay out Timely Applications of the text for contemporary audiences.  The application is not intended to be comprehensive or in overly precise detail.  It is merely intended as suggestive—to “prime the pump,” so to speak—for those reading the commentary devotionally or for preachers or teachers who struggle at the point of thinking applicationally.

-         Finally, we will provide limited Suggestions for Preaching and Teaching that particular section of text.  However, in laying out this material, we are by no means implying that any teacher or preacher should present the text in this manner.  Rather, we are merely attempting to help with the early brainstorming of might be presented in the classroom or pulpit setting.  If the Holy Spirit chooses to use any of our content to enhance the preaching or teaching of the Word, the Lord alone deserves all the glory!  We are all but fellow-servants—partners in the gospel, as Philippians 1:5 best puts it.

Bottom line: This is the kind of scholarly/practical commentary I would like to have to work with in my preaching and teaching.  As a result, this is the kind of commentary we are going to write… unless some better ideas come forward very quickly.  If you have any wild and crazy ideas/convictions in this arena that you would like to try out on me, please let me hear from you in the Comments section.

Blessings, Boyd

PS- If you didn’t figure out the title for this post, it is that I’m going to let you “look over my shoulder” as I prepare to write it, then do so.  But, if you choose to read the posts along the way, I’m expecting you to let me know what you like and what you don’t.  I may or may not make changes based on your criticisms.  But, I promise that they will all be carefully considered.  And, in the Acknowledgements section of the commentary, I will certainly thank those of you who have encouraged me or held my feet to the fire.

Coming Saturday: “Saturdaysare for Newspaper Articles”

Will Frank Page Turn Out to be King Josiah?

In most senses, I am not engaged at all in what is going on in Indianapolis at the SBC annual meeting.  However, I have read Ben Cole’s first two ‘on the scene’ posts on SBC Outpost.com and thought both had merit in fairly reflecting where things come to in recent years and the presidency of Dr. Frank Page.  I would simply like to add a few more obervations, then move away from the subject.  If everyone has been praying about what will happen in Indy, and since it is in the Lord’s hands anyway, I can leave it at that.

First of all, with only about 6,000 registered, it is obvious that Southern Baptists are staying away from their annual confab in mega-droves.  The ’spin’ will undoubtedly say this is because SBCers are so pleased with the way things are going that they don’t think they need to show up.  After all, the powers that be will represent their interests well whether they are there or not. 

But, I beg to differ.  It is not contentment, but discouragement to the point of depressiveness and hopelessness about the Convention, if ‘business as usual’ continues.  It is finally undeniable that the SBC is in numerical decline and, in my view, that is a lagging indicator behind other plateaus or declines that have been explained away too long.

Second, although I am not aware of who is running for 1st or 2nd VP, I cannot get excited about any of the presidential nominees except Les Puryear and Bill Wagner.  Wiley would be a loose cannon, to say the least, and the other three candidates give all appearances of being nothing more than extensions of some sub-group of the ruling Conservative Resurgence elite, meaning that ‘more of the same’ is their rallying cry at the very time when it is becoming painfully obvious that the last thing the SBC needs in looking to the future is status quo “fiddling while Rome burns.”

That brings me to my third and final point of today’s post.  Key question: Depending on who is elected Prez and the appointments he makes, will the SBC continue its decline–with the Page years being just a “blip”-or will fresh new blood and another “time-out” from the increasingly deadening effect of the doctrinal narrowing take place? 

In that regard, it may be instructive to look at the reign of King Josiah over Judah.  In case you are not familiar with him, Josiah reigned from 640-609 BC.  When Josiah came to the throne as still a young boy, Judah was already in pretty rough shape spiritually, particularly because of the still fairly recent 55-year reign of evil Manasseh.  Josiah was a godly king and moved things in a completely different direction from that of his immediate predecessors.  But, when he died, it was only four more years (i.e., until 605 BC) until the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar invaded the first time.

My point here is that one good leader truly seeking the Lord’s best, not what is best for an entrenched political machine and its direction, is not enough to stop a longstanding downward spiral.  Josiah couldn’t stop it, nor can Frank Page by himself.

Of course, with Judah, how much better would it have been if King Hezekiah had simply chosen to trust the Lord and die, instead of begging for more time, during which he fathered Manasseh?  Even though Hezekiah was a godly man in many ways, what he is most remembered for is his proud and short-sighted attitude about the utter destruction of Judah that would take place after he died (see 2 Kings 20:16-18): “… ‘The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good,’ for he thought: Why not, if there is to be peace and security during my lifetime” (HCSB). 

The reason Frank Page may turn out to be a Josiah figure, if you will, is that many of the honest-to-goodness ‘powers that be’ in the SBC are along in years and don’t appear to care what will happen to the SBC as their ever-narrowing policies and croneyistic appointments continue over extended time.  Sadly, by all appearances, their reflections on the current state of affairs goes no further than to avoid or explain away any bad news, to maintain their power at all costs and for there to “be peace and security during my lifetime.”  If they die and leave a dying Convention, at least they had their day in the sun and who cares about what happens after that?!

If anybody is interested, this may be the final SBC-related post I will ever write.  It did not make me happy to write what I have.  I hope I am dead wrong.  I fear I am not.

Coming Thursday: “Looking Over My Shoulder (I)”

Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles… a Day Early This Week

Gang, I have to be out of town from later this afternoon through tomorrow evening.  Plus, my blog’s new dashboard format has made it where I can’t readily figure out how to schedule a post.  So, I’m going to go ahead and put up tomorrow’s article right now.  As always, it is my weekly contribution to the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian: 

“Of Mountains and Valleys”

 

            Life has its highs and lows.  There is no disputing that.  Nobody’s daily existence stays on a constant even keel.  Yes, some people’s experience is more consistently that way than are others.  But, everybody’s lives are made up of partly happy and partly hard times.  “That’s life,” as the saying goes.

            Now, the descriptions of those highs and lows can be quite colorful.  For example, growing up in Mississippi, I heard more than any other sayings “high as a kite,” on the one hand, and “low as a snake’s belly in a wagon rut.”  Do you have favorite folksy sayings in this area?

            Often, very positive, joyful times are referred to as “mountaintop experiences.”  By contrast, the particularly difficult periods are frequently called something like “the deep, dark valley experience.”  Both descriptions strike a nerve with most of us, because, at least a few times, we’ve felt like we were “on top of the world” or “hitting rock bottom.”

            My main reason for developing this train of though, though, is to explore the emotions of these polar opposite experiences.  But, I am not going to do this as ends in themselves.  Instead, I am going to tease out where these emotional states put a person before God.  (If that doesn’t make sense to you as you just read, hang on!  It will very soon.)

            When a person is in the midst of a classic “mountaintop experience,” he or she usually feels invulnerable.  Everything has come together just right and, at that moment (if no other time in life), you feel as if nothing can touch or harm you. 

            It is completely natural to feel that way.  However, the emotions of happiness/joy that are the first reaction frequently do not stay at that pure level.  They turn into pride, which manifests itself in a cocky attitude and behavior.  And, that often is the primary difference between a gracious winner and an arrogant jerk.  Almost all of us have seen such persons, perhaps the same person who once was a gracious victor, but whose inflating ego transformed him or her into a strutting, stuck-up “big-head.”

            At the other end of the scale, people going through the really tough breaks of life often feel absolutely worthless.  Even if you did your very best, and did absolutely nothing wrong, it is hard not to feel like you have screwed up royally and that there is nothing good about you at all.

            So, how do these opposite emotional states stand up before God?  Frankly, neither is anywhere close to a balanced perspective in God’s eyes.  Let’s think about that together as I close this article.

            The “high” of pride is seeing yourself as more than you really are.  This faulty perspective can lead a person to think that he or she can be good enough before the Lord to be acceptable in His sight on your own personal merits.  But, that flies right in the face of the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 3—nobody is good enough; everybody is a lost sinner, hopeless without God’s intervention.

            The “low” of self-worthlessness, so to speak, is seeing yourself as less than you really are.  It infers from your emotional bottom point that nothing could possibly save a wretch like you.  However, that fails to recognize that you are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27) and that Christ died in your place on the Cross (John 3:16).  Yes, you are far from “good enough” in God’s eyes, but Jesus has acted to declare you righteous before God, if you will but trust Jesus by faith (Rom. 5:1).

            Which category are you in?  Is your self-estimate too high because of pride?  Too low because of major setbacks or losses?  Or, just right through faith in Jesus?  He will give you that supernatural ability to balance the highs and lows of life, if you will just give Him the chance to do so by trusting Him.

Coming Tuesday: (I’m still in the process of making that decision.  Please pray for me!)