The UK EA has freely released some legal framework documents that may be of particular interest to you if your church is in Britain and is led by one of its employees and/or decisions are not taken by a vote of the full membership. Legal changes have led to the following announcement:
"The Evangelical Alliance and the Charity Commission have announced the completion of three model governing documents that provide guidance for independent churches. These documents are the culmination of four years of work.
The documents set out the proper checks and balances required to allow paid church leaders to take appropriate leadership responsibilities as church charity trustees, manage any potential conflicts of interest, and offer churches a legal structure to help govern their charity.
The work, initiated in 2003, was primarily designed to strengthen accountability and governance of new independent churches. The model governing documents have been drawn up by the Evangelical Alliance, African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance,Anthony Collins (solicitors) and Stewardship, in partnership with the Charity Commission . . ."
I should say before I start—there is a reason why I don't usually blog about politics. It's not normally something I feel strongly about. But right now a thought is welling up within me—something I suspect many people are feeling and few are willing to ask:
Is it time for the Labour Party to fire their new leader and our prime minister?
There — I've asked the unthinkable. Although, of course, since I am not a Labour MP, nor even a member or committed supporter of any political party, there is nothing I can do to bring about Brown's downfall, other than perhaps write this post. But if you are a Labour MP reading this post, all I can say to you is perhaps you need to ask yourself, "Is it time to consider putting country before party, and begin to explore the possibility of changing your leader?" All it would take is the confidence to stand up to him. I'm sure many of you must be wondering why none of you had the courage to stand against him in a true leadership election. That surely was Brown's first mistake—not ensuring that there was a true open contest for the leader's chair.
When I wrote a post last month entitled "The Beginning of the End for Brown?" I certainly did not expect to see what we have seen since then. I must stress that I am not a committed Tory supporter, and am not even sure that David Cameron would do a vastly better job. Rather, I am beginning to feel that for the good of the nation, and for the good of Brown's increasingly long and persecuted-looking face, it's time to draw this more swiftly to the conclusion we know is coming. I still remember the look of relief on Major's face when he lost the election to Blair. I genuinely don't think it's going to do Brown much good to hang on, and more importantly than that, I'm starting to have serious doubts about what this is going to do to our nation.
In the short months since Brown took over from our properly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, let's look at the catalouge of errors, and in particular the indecision we have seen from Brown.
We saw the foot-and-mouth crisis handled badly, with premature declarations that we were "free" of the illness, and allowing the lab that leaked the virus to go on working, resulting this past week in an astonishing second leak. A decisive leader would have shut the lab down and ensured that such labs did not work next to farms again.
In the Northern Rock fiasco, we saw early dithering about whether to bail the bank out or let it go bust. It seems we, the taxpayer, have now loaned up to perhaps a staggering 30 billion to this bank. I can only assume that much of this has gone on enabling Northern Rock to repay loans made by other banks who should have known better. Surely there may well be other banks at risk. The extension of the ad hoc "savings guarantee" to all bank deposits in the UK suggests this might be the case. In the meantime we still don't know what is going to happen to Northern Rock. A decisive leader would have either let the bank go bust or simply nationalized it. To allow this drain on the public finances, which now exceeds the primary school budget, to continue to grow is inexcusable. We have even been told that the loans might be illegal under EU law! To preside over the first run on a UK bank in 150 years is both shameful and obviously preventable and predictable (e.g. up front offering the savings guarantee but no loan, for example). What is shocking is that so many other crises are ongoing that this latest growth in the bank's national debt barely gets a mention. A decisive leader might have seen this crisis coming and prevented it, or could have acted in a much clearer way from the beginning instead of what is now shameful and dangerous indecision.
Brown has presided—the most damaging of all of the above for Brown personally as it happened in his old department—over the biggest data security breach I suspect has ever occurred anywhere in world history. Brown expects us to believe that the system he approved to be put in place allowed a junior official to simply download the names, addresses, phone numbers, and bank accounts of every child in the UK and their parents. If that is so, then he should resign in shame for that alone. It is simply unbelievable. I suspect that it also isn't quite true, as Nick Robinson hints in his sharing of an email trail with us. A decisive leader would have never allowed a careless culture to arise, and would have called in the police to investigate what was surely a breach of the law.
Brown has also, by his own admission, presided over a Labour Party which broke the law flagrantly over voter donations. He has not looked too good in refusing to initially call in the police, and in almost trying to blame his deputy in the whole "I know nothing about this man" bit. A decisive leader would have either demanded the head of his deputy before making his announcement or wholeheartedly supported her. Also, what kind of party is so casual about its fund raising?
Surely any one of these things would be enough to bring down the CEO of a company that had failed us all so badly. This is our government. None of these crises are in one sense massive—if we were to face a more serious situation, I would be very concerned indeed. Yet all of them have been made worse, not better, by our Prime Minister and his government. Am I the only one who thinks it is Brown himself who should resign?
UPDATE One thing I forgot to mention was picked up by the BBC yesterday. The deathly power of humour to a politician. Here's what they said: they first quoted from Vince Cable the following devestating put-down about Brown.
The prime minister had been transformed, he said, from "Stalin into Mr Bean."
The PM's face fell.
Opposition MPs fell about.
Quite a few Labour members struggled not to do the same.
The truly worrying thing, from the Brownite perspective is that, just now, a man who's worked hard to establish strength, sound judgement and deadly seriousness as his defining characteristics seems to be in danger of becoming a figure of fun. . . .
Tony Blair was generally despised or admired.
Margaret Thatcher was often both, at once.
Recoverable?
I cannot remember an exquisitely delivered one-liner hitting home against either of them in quite the same way as we saw this week
Other blogs and main stream media are also strongly criticizing Brown this weekend. This includes the following:
What possessed Gordon Brown to declare, before he had the least reason to know it to be true, that there was one individual alone, Labour's general secretary, who knew about the fake donors just as the media began unearthing all the others, and, as I write, are still unearthing? Didn't that great strategist, that colossus of a political intellect, pause for a moment to wonder whether there might be more to come out?
In what stunted imagination but Mr Brown's could the plan then be hatched to make Harriet Harman the scapegoat for receiving, on Mr Brown's own lieutenant's advice, a sum representing less than 1 per cent of the total monies paid by David Abrahams? To what bully's mind but Mr Brown's could it fail to occur that if he kicked her in the stomach she might defend herself?"
On the last evening of Easter People this year Rob preached, and as he left the platform he was sad that this would be the last Easter People . . . but he believed God said to him, ". . . you will not be here next year Rob." We thank God for this preparation, even though the knowledge has been difficult.
I don't often mention politics on this blog. But today I simply can't resist. This weekend, election fever was rife in the UK. One of the many oddities of our UK political system is that, right now, a man who was never directly elected by the population to be Prime Minister has the power to call an election at a time of his choosing between now and June 2010!
Because we don't have term limits or fixed terms for Parliament, Tony Blair finally stepped aside to let his Finance Minister become Prime Minister. There wasn't even a true election within the Labour party since no one stood against him. Please don't think I am merely revealing an imagined political bias if I tell you that, so far, I am definitely less impressed with Brown's leadership ability than with his financial acumen or policy-making.
After initially claiming there was no need to hold an election, immediately on taking over the premiership just three months ago, he was emboldened by the so-called "honeymoon period bounce," during which his poll ratings climbed. At times I still think he looks a bit like a boy playing with his new toys. Certainly the way he has been teasing people over the last few weeks about a possible election has seemed somewhat smug to me. He knows that he has the power to do so as and when he chooses. Since things were looking good for him, he allowed everybody to think that he was undoubtedly going to call an election. He has even been accused of "spinning" over soldiers in Iraq this past week and using civil servants against the Tories. Now opinion polls have swung the other way. It is now, in the words of Nick Robinson of the BBC, "all tosh." Calling an election is surely a power that ought not to sit in the hands of the elected (or in his case unelected) leader of our nation. This weekend has certainly underlined that for me.
Any pledge by Cameron that if he were Prime Minister he would give up the right to call an election and establish an alternative system would surely gain him some more votes whenever Brown eventually decides to go to the people!
In light of all the speculation that an announcement could be made about an election early next week (to take place, believe it or not, at the beginning of November!!) I decided earlier this weekend that I had better listen to both leaders' speeches.
I listened to David Cameron's first. The leader of Margaret Thatcher's party, Cameron spoke for his political life. Without an autocue. Without detailed notes. He was engaging. Even funny at times. He announced a massive increase in the amount of money that can be inherited free of death duties—sufficient to take the value of most of England's homes out of the equation. Unemployed who refused a "fair job offer" would lose benefits. There would be a married persons tax allowance, and the benefit system would no longer penalize people for being married or in a relationship.
That one speech changed Brown's mind—that and the weekend polls, which placed Cameron in the lead over him! Then, cynicism of cynicism! We see a somewhat humbled Brown saying he wants the election to be about his view of the future, and so it will be in the future—a future of his choosing—and, he claimed it had absolutely nothing to do with the polls!
After listening to Cameron's speech, and before Brown's announcement, I began to listen to Brown's. I didn't get very far into it, but in terms of the style and rhetoric, I certainly didn't enjoy it half as much as Cameron's. Now I feel I don't need to continue to listen.
Please don't take this as an endorsement of the Conservative Party (even though I do know one of their candidates, Philippa Stroud), nor as a rejection of Labour. All I am saying is that leadership is about tactics, and about good speeches. The past few weeks has surely seen Brown look beaten by Cameron on both counts. Thanks to our electoral system, he can now lick his wounds, get on with running the country, and decide just how he can respond to the political grenade demonstrated in the following speech, which is available in both video and full text from the Conservative Party website.
My buddy, Mark Moore, has asked us to pray for a friend of his who is a pastor facing persecution in India. See Mark's blog for the full story:
“One of our international pastors in Acts 29, Pastor Sudhakar in India, is facing tremendous persecution, having been drug out of his church on a Sunday morning and beaten by twenty men. He is now standing trial for "converting Hindus to Christianity."
As many of you may already know, Dr. D. James Kennedy, well-known pastor, teacher, and evangelist died September 5th at his home in Florida after having suffered a cardiac arrest last December.
"My indebtedness to Dr. Kennedy is very personal. I was a young Southern Baptist who as a teenager had serious questions about the big issues of the Christian faith. Dr. Kennedy's ministry at Coral Ridge addressed those big questions. He was unafraid to take on the intellectual challenges of the faith. He was kind to a Baptist teenager, introducing me to Francis Schaeffer and dignifying my questions. He clearly enjoyed talking theology and he was the first person I had ever met who demonstrated this joy. He was kind. I was hooked. In no small way my own calling as a theologian can be traced to Dr. Kennedy's influence. I was inspired by his intellectual engagement and motivated by his vision of excellence for God's glory."
Dr. James Kennedy, the well-known pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has been unable to preach during 2007 due to poor health and has now formally retired. His daughter made the announcement this morning.
The much beloved wife of Billy Graham has died. There is lots of coverage on the CT Blog
Justin Taylor says it well when he writes "I join others around the world in thanking God for a life well lived in quiet, unashamed, faithful service to the Lord and his kingdom."
I am glad for the work of this couple who have represented Jesus well to the whole world for decades. I wonder if we will ever see their like again. It is astonishing to think of all that they did, and of the selfless way Ruth supported her husbands ministry to the crowds and world leaders.
Billy and Ruth were constants in a changing world. Ruth's passing reminds us no man goes on forever. With Billy now retired, and John Stott to preach only one more sermon a generation of world-class Christian leaders has passed away.
We should pray for world class leaders to be raised up to take their place. I am sure we can all think of several beginning to rise to significant influence. But, I wonder if we will in fact see just one or two rise to such prominence as say Stott and Graham had - between them embodying Evangelicalism to several generations.
"The Rev. Jerry Falwell has died, a Liberty University executive said Tuesday. He was 73.
Earlier, the executive said Falwell was hospitalized in "gravely serious" condition after being found unconscious in his office.
Ron Godwin, the executive vice president of Falwell's Liberty University, said Falwell was found unresponsive around 10:45 a.m. and taken to Lynchburg General Hospital. Godwin said he was not sure what caused the collapse, but "he has a history of heart challenges."
I have often said that one aspect of the American political system that is sensible is term limits for the president. It is no great surprise to anyone that Tony Blair has today announced his intention to resign as prime minister at the end of June.
In so doing, he has achieved a rare thing in British politics — leaving power at a time of his choosing and at a moment which many feel will place him in a good light. In a move that has been carefully choreographed, his announcement comes shortly after the monumental events that occurred in Northern Ireland earlier this week and before a round of international conferences, which Tony Blair will still lead before what appears to be the inevitable takeover by Gordon Brown, who is the current Chancellor/ Finance Minister.
Tony Blair clearly wants to be remembered as the politician who thought the unthinkable in Northern Ireland and brought Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams to the same table for peace.
He was very emotional at times in his speech, and the BBC has made the video of the whole speech available, as well as the transcript. In the video, Blair shows us once again what a master communicator he is, and I found myself quite choked as this announcement reflects the end of a chapter in the life of my country.
Whether you agree or disagree with Blair’s actions, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a master politician, probably the master politician of his generation anywhere in the world today. He has an astonishing self-belief, and closed his statement with a claim that Britain is the greatest nation on earth, something which almost no other Brit I know would dare to say! There is no doubt that such confident leadership is a great need of people, particularly in these days. Blair will be missed, more than some of us realise.
The following quotes from his speech stood out to me:
“I have been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world today, that is long enough, for me, but more especially for the country.”
“Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down.”
“I looked at my own country, a great country — wonderful history, magnificent traditions, proud of its past, but strangely uncertain of its future, uncertain about the future, almost old-fashioned.”
“So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning, for sweeping away all the detritus of the past.”
“Expectations were so high, too high - too high in a way for either of us.”
“There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: 'More jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter,' — this one.”
“Think about the culture of Britain in 2007. I don't just mean our arts that are thriving. I mean our values, the minimum wage, paid holidays as a right, amongst the best maternity pay and leave in Europe, equality for gay people.
Or look at the debates that reverberate round the world today - the global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty, climate change, the fight against terrorism.
Britain is not a follower. It is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today's world — its interdependence.
This is a country today that for all its faults, for all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, is comfortable in the 21st Century, at home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but confident of its future.”
“But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right.
I may have been wrong. That is your call. But believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.
I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future. I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future.
This is a country that can, today, be excited by the opportunities, not constantly fretful of the dangers.
People often say to me: 'It's a tough job' — not really.
A tough life is the life the young severely disabled children have and their parents, who visited me in Parliament the other week.
Tough is the life my dad had, his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke. I have been very lucky and very blessed. This country is a blessed nation.
The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth.
It has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short. Good luck.”
Lig Duncan has been part of a committee that has been considering the teachings of the NewPerspectives on Paul (NPP), and especially N. T. Wright, for several months on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in America.
They have now made a number of clear declarations as listed below, and the closing paragraphs of the report suggest to me that they have concluded that to hold these views should become inconsistent with continuing as a minister or preacher in a PCA church. They make a number of requests of the General Assembly which meets later this year which include
"That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.
That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).
I am not qute clear what happens next if this report is adopted — will we eventually see some kind of exclusionary process for those who hold to these ideas? (HT Justin Taylor)
The Declarations of the PCA Committee
"In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV (Ed = Federal Vision), and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:
The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption, and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards."
The whole article is well worth a read, but I offer the following excerpts as a taste of the way they strongly criticize N. T. Wright in particular:
NT Wright’s "...version of Paul’s teaching on election and covenant stands in stark contrast to the confessional formulation of these themes. Both cannot be right as faithful presentations of the Pauline teaching on election and covenant."
"We often hear proponents and sympathizers of the NPP and FV who are part of confessional Reformed communities say, that while they go beyond the Westminster Standards in what they affirm, they do not contradict the Westminster Standards. But it is evident that the version of covenant and election taught by the NPP and FV is incompatible with the views of the Westminster Standards. In fact, these two approaches to covenant and election are not complementary ways of looking at the biblical data, but irreconcilably contradictory alternative accounts of the biblical data . . ."
"The Committee would suggest that the FV proponents have in effect provided an alternative hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. They have done so 1) by concentrating their efforts on the “objectivity” of the covenant, 2) by stressing the “covenantal” efficacy of baptism, 3) by focusing on the undifferentiated membership of the visible church, 4) by holding the view that the “elect” are covenant members who may one day fall from their elect status, and 5) by highlighting the need for persevering faithfulness in order to secure final election . . ."
"To put it briefly, according to Wright, justification is chiefly the status of covenant membership, the status of belonging as a member of God’s people."
"While Wright notes that justification (covenant membership) is a declaration that an individual’s sins are already forgiven, it does not mean that there is a transfer of God’s or Christ’s righteousness to sinners. As he argues, 'The righteousness they have will not be God’s own righteousness…God’s righteousness remains, so to speak, God’s own property. It is the reason for his acting to vindicate his people. It is not the status he bestows upon them in so doing.'"
". . .according to Wright, the traditional idea of 'imputed righteousness, whereby sinners are accepted and accounted as righteous in God’s sight because of the righteousness of Jesus, is incorrect: “If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or gas which can be passed around the courtroom.'"
"Thus, the idea of a “gracious transfer” is simply not found in the biblical texts, according to Wright. In dealing with Romans 4:3-5, Wright understands the “book-keeping metaphor” of “counted” (ESV) as referring to the individual’s “status of being a member of the covenant…according to Wright, the language of Romans 4 does not represent “imputation” of “Christ’s/God’s righteousness” to the ungodly."
"The question is then raised, when does this justification occur? For Wright, justification is an eschatological judgment that is applied in the present time “as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future.” This "whole life" includes both the membership badge of “faith” as well as faithful responses by the individual to life among God’s people. The place where Wright argues this most forcefully is in his exposition of Romans 2. There, Wright suggests that the justification of God’s people occurs “on the basis of works” (cf. Romans 2:6). When he describes what this “basis” represents, he suggests that it is not so much the accomplishment of particular works, but rather the “seeking for them”: the godly are “defined in terms of that for which they seek and the means by which that quest is pursued.”"
"John Stott would like his many friends around the world to know that, having reached the age of 86 in April, he has taken the decision finally to retire from public ministry after fulfilling one final speaking engagement at the upcoming Keswick Convention in July.
He will be moving from his flat in central London where he has lived for more than 30 years, to a retirement community for Anglican clergy in the south of England, which will be able to provide more fully for his present and future needs. Dr Stott has made this decision with the strong belief that it is God's provision for him at this stage."
The ministry of this man has spanned many decades and he was truly a leader among leaders. He will be sorely missed. It seems quite timely that this announcement should occur this week when the atonement is once again stirring controversy. A new generation of God's people wrestling with this subject may not have the man himself, but they do still have his book The Cross of Christ. A few days back I shared a quote from that book, which is often used by those who disagree with penal substitutionary atonement to argue that Stott does not believe the version of PSA being defended in modern times. I thought it would be fitting to share another quote that makes plain that, in fact, he most certainly did uphold the glorious doctrine of Jesus' penal substitutionary death.
"How then could God express simultaneously his holiness in judgment and his love in pardon? Only by providing a divine substitute for the sinner, so that the substitute would receive the judgment and the sinner the pardon. We sinners still of course have to suffer some of the personal, psychological, and social consequences of our sins, but the penal consequence, the deserved penalty of alienation from God, has been borne by Another in our place, so that we may be spared it. I have not come across a more careful statement of the substitutionary nature of the atonement than that made by Charles E. B. Cranfield in his commentary on Romans . . . He writes:
"God, because in his mercy he willed to forgive sinful men, and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against his own very self in the person of his Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved."
Up until now, I have mostly resisted getting drawn into commenting on US politics. I still think I probably won't do too many of these kinds of posts — I've always thought it was none of my business! But tell me, my fair readers, do you want me to talk more about all this?
I thought yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court upholding the ban on partial birth abortion would throw the upcoming presidential election into sharp relief, and I was right. Here’s what some of the candidates had to say:
DEMOCRAT
Hillary Clinton — "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
John Edwards — "I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake — starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose.”
Barak Obama — "I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
REPUBLICAN
Sam Brownback — "I'm delighted that the Supreme Court is moving forward to see the expression of life in the Constitution. I hope that some day we’ll see all life respected at all stages and protected in this land and around the world."
John Cox — "Against abortion and for life without any exceptions. Life begins at conception."
Rudy Giuliani — "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."
John McCain — "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
Mitt Romney — "Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us."
Tom Tancredo — "Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb. Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions. This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, 'I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade.'"
Tommy Thompson — "I commend the United States Supreme Court for upholding the nation’s ban on partial-birth abortions. This decision sends a clear message that the United States values life and has no tolerance for this gruesome, abhorrent way to take a life. There is no place for partial-birth abortions in this country, and I am pleased the court upheld the law passed by Congress."
Technology helps me in both my sermon preparation and in my personal devotional life. By technology, I’m referring specifically to the Internet and Bible software. I love it and have no apology for using it to discover insights from God’s Word and to improve the quality of my preaching.
People have three different reactions when I talk to them about using technology to help us understand God's Word. Some respond enthusiastically. Others—well, their eyes just glaze over. The third group starts talking about plagiarism of sermons and how terrible it is that pastors are no better than children who buy essays online to submit as coursework. Perhaps you have had similar responses when you talk about SermonCentral.com. Maybe you don't even like to talk about it for fear of these responses. I hope that by the time you have finished reading this article you will be able to hold your head high about your use of SermonCentral.com and other forms of technology to help you preach.
What about the fear of abuses of technology, particularly Internet sermon access? I’ll simply put my cards on the table here: I think there is a lot of unnecessary concern about it. I do not think that there are many men of God who are lifting whole sermons from elsewhere and simply re-preaching them. Sure it happens. But for those of us who are conscientiously and diligently putting our hearts into our sermon preparation, it’s not worth wasting our time on those who aren’t. Let’s just preach the Word!
On Judgment Day I would not want to be in the shoes of anyone who made a habit of the loathsome practice of simply passing off other people’s sermons as their own. As preachers, we should never forget the following very serious words of warning:
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1, ESV).
Those words should haunt you as a preacher. They do me as I sit here writing this article having preached just a few hours ago.
Most preachers understand why even a great preacher like Martyn Lloyd-Jones could say of his own preaching,
"I can say quite honestly that I would not cross the road to listen to myself preaching." This wasn't because of any lack of commitment to preaching on his part since he also said, "Preaching has been my life's work … to me the work of preaching is the highest and the greatest and the most glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called."
(Preface to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971)
The joyful, yet awesome, responsibility of preaching should have an effect on us. Of course, we would not simply copy another person's sermon—how could we dare? But how can we go into the pulpit and deliver our own untested insights to the people God has entrusted to our preaching? It is precisely because of the weight of this responsibility that far from being embarrassed about my reading of other people's material, I consider it imperative to do so. After all, I will stand before God to give account for every word I preach.
There are sometimes double standards in people's minds on this issue of plagiarism. Surely reading sermons from SermonCentral is no different from reading a commentary or theological work, or a book of sermons. Technology doesn't alter at all the basic fact—we are reading the work of others who have studied the Bible before us. The truth is that for thousands of years preachers have studied what other students of the Bible have written. How is reading published sermons so very different from reading a commentary? Do people who feel we should not use any technology in our sermon preparation seriously believe that we should not read anything other than the Bible to help us?
Centuries before anyone thought of making sermons available on the web, Charles Simeon produced his Horae Homileticae, which was essentially a set of sermon outlines which covered the whole of Scripture. Over on Wikipedia, the accusation is made that this publication was an "invitation to plagiarism", which seems crazy to me. All SermonCentral.com enthusiasts should rejoice to hear that the people at Logos Bible Software are publishing an electronic edition of this amazing work.
The truth is, the advice I was given by a wise man when I was just beginning to preach as a teenager is as applicable to the age of the Internet and Bible software as it was when these things hadn't been conceived. My mentor encouraged me to work on a passage myself, trying to understand it as best as I could, and then check my conclusions and expand my understanding by reading others. Such advice has been repeated by every preacher who I respect and have spoken to about this issue. Another of my mentors told me that he didn't think he had ever preached a sermon without first checking what Charles Spurgeon had to say on the relevant passage.
There is no such thing as a copyright on ideas. Plagiarism is not an issue when we begin to extract ideas, reword them, and combine them with other ideas we have found elsewhere or thought of ourselves. Actually, I have learned over the years that if I come up with an interpretation of Scripture that seems new and fresh to me, the majority of the time I will discover, if I read enough commentaries or sermons, an almost identical idea has been expressed before by someone else. It is when I don't find my thoughts reflected previously that I worry, since I suspect that at least half of such truly original ideas are probably heretical! It is technology that allows me to check myself against the collective thought of others, and incorporate some of the ideas of others as appropriate.
It can be amusing to see how unknowingly dependent on others we sometimes find ourselves. I remember a few years ago preparing a sermon on a subject and then turning to one of Spurgeon's sermons to see what he had written on the passage at hand. I was shocked when I realized that I had come up with a set of headings that were so similar to his and in such a similar order that someone would have thought I had copied them. I never decided whether I should be pleased that I had spontaneously come to the same conclusions as the prince of preachers, or conclude that I had obviously read that sermon at some point in the past and had somehow regurgitated the headings. I am fairly certain that the second conclusion was, in fact, the case.
Both my early mentors and my fear of getting it wrong gave me a desire to check my conclusions before I preached. When I was first learning to prepare sermons, I traveled into London to the Evangelical Library, which was also much loved by one of my other heroes—Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I would find the largest table I could and gradually fill it with commentaries and sermon collections open to the relevant passage I was studying. I quickly realized this was not a very efficient way to study since I only needed a few pages at most of the large volumes I was lugging around the library—indeed, often I was only really interested in a sentence or two which encapsulated a thought that I had not yet considered.
It was around that time that I decided I needed to have the Spurgeon volumes at home. When I saw the cost and size of the paper collection, I knew it wasn't possible for me. I found instead an electronic edition at a much cheaper price, and my electronic book collection began.
I mentioned earlier that I had preached a sermon today. Let me tell you a bit about the different forms of technology I used to help me in this talk, and how I use them generally. Firstly, I am an avid believer in the power of this new form of communication known as the Internet. Historians are unequivocal that the Reformation was only possible because of the invention of the printing press. This enabled Luther to communicate with large numbers of people at once through printed tracts. Luther was able to transform Europe theologically, unlike men like the martyr Huss, who had prophesied 100 years previously that the Reformers were coming. Today we are living through a revolution in communication that is at least as significant. Christians need to grab the opportunities this presents. Technology is a gift to be received—and seized!
The Internet has enabled me to connect with many people and benefit from their wisdom. My blog in particular has led me to form good relationships with people I would never have otherwise met. At all stages of the composition of my sermon notes, I made heavy use of e-mail and chat programs to share my ideas and ask for help from a few people—some of whom live on another continent to me. It seems I am in good company as Josh Harris recently blogged that he e-mails his manuscript for comments to C.J. Mahaney and others every Saturday night wherever they may be in the world.
Also, on the Internet I found SermonCentral to be particularly useful in finding cross-references for the theme of my passage. This was more difficult than is sometimes the case since this was one of those biblical subjects which is frequently described using different words. Thus, I decided to search for other sermons with a particular key word in their title. As well as giving me material to read, this helped me to identify some key passages in the Bible I had not considered. I love being able to read the product of the labors of other preachers around the world.
I was also able to discover material from a collection of over 100 handpicked Christian websites and blogs by using a search box I include on my blog's homepage. Utilizing the Google search engine, this simple, but helpful, tool enables me to limit my search to the specific Christian sites I want to study. These include desiringgod.org, spurgeon.org, ccel.org, bible.org, sermoncentral.com, and many others. Within a split-second, everything my favorite Christian sites have to say on a Bible verse or subject appears on my screen.
I also used the ESV.org website to help me quickly copy and paste passages into my notes, as well as to listen to the text. (The same can be done for other Bible versions with the Search-the-Bible feature on SermonCentral.com.) I even downloaded some mp3 sermons on my theme. I wrote a set of long notes, then decided to convert them into a PowerPoint show, and then changed my mind about having slides, so needed to export it back to the word processor for yet another edit. As you can see, the preparation of my notes is heavily technology-dependent. If I had to go back to a pen and paper to produce the notes from which I will preach, it would certainly feel very odd!
But for me, the most helpful source of assistance of all in my sermon preparation is my Bible software. The reason why I like it the most is that it is a direct connect with the Bible itself—the sole infallible source of preaching material. Most software packages will allow you to easily compare different English translations and explore the Bible in its original languages. My favorite is Logos Bible Software, which does all this and much more. It’s great to see the former Microsoft employees who founded Logos now using their talents to strengthen my study of Scripture.
For many years now, if I want to check out the meaning of a Bible passage, do a word study in the original Greek, or, indeed, check out the latest theological thinking on a certain subject—I almost always turn to my Bible software application—which now feels to me like my own full-time personal digital assistant.
I also sometimes call my growing collection of electronic commentaries, lexicons, Bibles, interlinear Bibles, commentaries, reference books, and theological journals my personal “Theological Seminary in a Box.” Logos has served up a feast of resources in a one-stop platform. For me, at least, this software goes some way towards covering up my lack of any theological degrees. For sure, I've needed to learn from others in real life, and have done some theological training courses, but with Logos Bible Software I can instantly benefit from the pooled expertise of thousands of scholars.
The sheer volume of what is available electronically still amazes me. Just as an example, it is possible to obtain the majority of John MacArthur's life works on a single disk! “What will I use as a doorstop now without those piles of books?" you ask. There are, in fact, literally thousands of books and products that can be stored on your hard drive.
Over the years I've found my Bible software to be an invaluable resource in sermon preparation. I simply enter a passage on the home screen, press “go,” and watch as my whole electronic library is searched for information about that Bible reference. I hope you can grasp how having all these resources available electronically saves me countless hours of time. It would simply not be possible to search that many books and journal articles manually each week without an army of research assistants.
Are there any drawbacks to all of this technology? In a way, the very strength of this software is its weakness. A thorough use of technology and the Logos Bible Software in particular—especially if you have an extensive library—will greatly increase your confidence in preparing sermons. This could lead to an increase in pride and to a desire to over-display that knowledge whilst preaching. After spending hours chasing rabbit trails and wrestling with the text, we sometimes want others to see the fruits of our labors. In fact, we have to bury most of it. A good sermon, however, is like an iceberg. The mountain of ice—which represents the message itself—is dwarfed by the vast amount of preparation underpinning it beneath the surface.
I have sometimes spent hours studying a particular issue merely to come across with greater conviction as I preach a single sentence. It reminds me of something a manager at Apple said about preparation for Steve Job’s keynote presentations, "The team and I spent hundreds of hours preparing for a segment that lasted about five minutes."
The good news for those of us with a large electronic library is that the reference materials represent the results of millions of hours of study by some of the sharpest theological minds among current and previous church scholars. I can simply open my software, type a Bible passage into the passage guide, and set my own personal team of thousands of scholars to work. Imagine being able to simultaneously e-mail the authors of 500 years’ worth of theological journal articles, asking if they had ever written on that obscure Bible verse you are struggling with—and getting an answer in seconds!
If we take our preaching seriously, I don't see any alternative resource that can do everything that my Bible software library does – packages from other companies do exist, but none I have found have as many resources available as Logos. I am so grateful for it, along with the sermons that are available online at places like SermonCentral. (These days the two even work together seamlessly as SermonCentral results are incorporated into Logos Bible Software’s passage guide.)
With all this knowledge at our fingertips—how do we prevent the pride referred to in the statement "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (1 Corinthians 8:1)? I think that access to all of that knowledge can be turned—if our hearts are right—to stimulate humility. We ought to realize very quickly that wiser scholars than us have much to teach us and still disagree with each other on points we thought were "obvious". This should make us humble. We can even imagine ourselves in a dialogue with the authors of all this material, and who knows, they might even persuade us of a new opinion. We must be more committed to the Bible than we are to the theological system to which we hold. This conviction was a major trait of Charles Simeon, who I mentioned at the beginning of this article.
Another possible drawback of the overuse of technology is this: When preparing to preach, we might feel that our task is complete when we have studied well. Rather, we must also build a bridge from this world to the world of the Bible. Only part of that bridge-building is done by studying the Bible and what others have said concerning it. A good sermon will also have a foot in this world. Thus, we must know something about this world so we can apply the Scriptures.
This is one reason why I like reading and hearing other people's sermons; hopefully, at least some of them will have considered the applications and illustrations that connect with their congregations. Spurgeon was a master at this. We cannot merely copy his work, however, as we live in a very different context to him. We must learn to apply God’s unchanging Word to our changing culture. The importance of fresh, personal illustrations cannot be overemphasized.
But producing a connection is not merely an intellectual task. We need God’s help. I realize that an over-reliance on technology and the resources I utilize can detract and take away from spending time in prayer over the message. We should not presume that God will bless our laziness, nor should we forget to ask Him to bless the messages we have prepared with all that technology.
I do pray in front of my PC as I study and read, but just as at the beginning of my preparation it should be me, my God, and my Bible, at the end of my preparation, I need to switch off the computer, put aside the notes, get away from all distractions, and simply pray. I am ashamed to admit how often I have to remind myself to do this. For it is really only as I connect with God personally—because of or in spite of technology—that I will find He takes my preparation and turns it into an anointed sermon that will impact the lives of my hearers—and that, after all, is why we all preach. There is no better advice ever given to preachers than to follow the advice of the early Apostles who said:
“We will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:4.)
This story retold by Chuck Colson brought a little bit of warmth to my day. In all the horrors of the ongoing war in Iraq — and let's not forget U.S. soldiers are also at times the ones firing on their enemies — a bit of humanity, or rather the image of God, shines through from time to time:
"I have never seen a more dramatic example of worldviews in contrast, nor have I been prouder of an American G.I. On one hand, we have the horrors of a civilization that values death — even the death of its own children — if by killing them they can hurt the infidels. On the other side, we have a story that makes us realize just how deeply embedded within American life is our Judeo-Christian heritage. This heritage teaches that human life is sacred—even the life of an enemy who falls into our hands."
— Chuck Colson, "Thirty Pints of Blood," Townhall.com
