How to Make Your Pastor a Better Preacher

Many people lament the state of preaching today. Much blame is laid on seminaries, and a good bit on the preachers themselves. But it is possible there is also fault in the pews.

It is true that seminaries in general do not do a good job of producing preachers. Homiletics (instruction in preaching) is usually one class among dozens. Greek, Hebrew, church history, systematic theology, pastoral counseling, Christian education and other topics vie for a piece of the seminary pie. Even at a seminary with good preaching instruction, a student may have his preaching evaluated half a dozen times. So while some bad preaching may be the seminaries’ fault, they can hardly be blamed for all of it.

Preachers, too, are culpable in regard to bad preaching. Inadequate preparation is probably the leading culprit, though no doubt other things are involved. A pastor, especially a solo pastor, has a lot of responsibilities. Counseling, membership training, officer training, home and hospital visitation, demands of family and home, all take away from preparation time. There is, of course, laziness, carelessness, perhaps distaste for the work of preaching itself. It may be also that a pastor has a low view of his preaching abilities, and doesn't see any way to improve.

But it is possible that the people in the pews bear some of the responsibility for poor preaching. For one thing, congregations appear too tolerant of bad preaching. This may be for a number of reasons. First, many churches do not pay well, and the congregation may be harboring a “you get what you pay for” attitude, even if they may not recognize it. Or they may excuse bad preaching on the basis that the pastor is a really nice guy, or he’s so faithful in visitation, or he’s a great counselor. It may also be that many Christians simply have no idea what constitutes good preaching. Here is a minimalist definition of good preaching: a dealing with the biblical text that explains in a clear and orderly fashion what the text means, and identifies how it may be applied in the life of the Christian. Good preaching does not have to do with clever turns of phrase, though a good preacher may use them. Good preaching does not have to be loud (though all the people should be able to hear). Good preaching should be at least somewhat animated, and will be if the man is gripped by his message, but the amount and kind of animation will also depend on the personality of the man.

But aside from recognizing bad preaching, and refusing to put up with it, what can a congregation do to make their pastor a better preacher?

First, congregations must pray for their pastor. Pray that he has adequate time to prepare. Pray that he himself prays over his studies. Pray that he will be gripped by the message of the text so that it becomes his message as well. Pray that he would have wisdom and insight to be able to see clearly how to explain and apply the passage.

Second, congregations should prepare to hear the sermon. If you know ahead of time what passage your pastor will be preaching, spend time during the week studying it and praying over it, so that you are ready to hear it explained and applied. You’ll be surprised by how much this will help.

Third, congregations should both praise and criticize their pastor’s preaching. Now this is a touchy subject. I don’t mean here the meaningless “Good message, Pastor” as you’re going out the door after the service. I mean something like “Preacher, I really appreciated how you explained the difficulty in that passage” (and then be specific). Remember, too, that you can’t say much as you’re going out the door. If you were really struck by the sermon, send him a short email. As for criticism, do that in person. Set up an appointment. Prepare for it. Don’t make it a personal attack, but tie it directly to the sermon. “Pastor, I think you misapplied that passage.” Don’t take it personally if he doesn't agree with you. And don’t be a constant critic. Diligent pastors are all too painfully aware of their shortcomings in the pulpit, and too frequent a diet of criticism from the congregation is discouraging.

Fourth, the congregation should be patient, especially with a beginning preacher. It can take time for a man to get comfortable in the pulpit. It takes time for him to develop in his sense of what is important in a passage and what is not. As children do not go from taking the first step to running easily at top speed in the space of a day, a pastor takes time to develop his preaching skills. But if, over time, he shows no improvement; if his sermons remain garbled messes, impossible to follow, then send him packing. Don’t keep him because he’s a nice guy. Don’t keep him because he’s faithful in visitation. Send him packing because he’s not doing the primary job that he is called to do. Your congregation deserves good preaching and will die without it.

When the Bible Offends

Last week I dealt with a post from Dr. William Mounce on the use of the vocative “Woman” in the New Testament. His view was that this was difficult, if not impossible to translate, because it sounds offensive to modern Western ears (see last week’s post). In reading through the comments on Mounce’s post, it became clear that a number of his readers agreed with him. They found the term offensive, or upsetting.

That raised the following question for me: What are we to do when something we read in the Bible offends us? It seems to me that there are three responses. The first response should be for us to ask ourselves whether we have understood the Bible properly. As I sought to show last week with the “woman” issue, this may not be particularly difficult to determine. Some time spent with a concordance, or a commentary, or a study Bible should clarify many things for us. When it becomes clear that we have misunderstood the passage, we need to labor to bring our understanding in line with what the Bible is actually saying at that point. We may help ourselves in this by seeking to explain the true meaning of the passage to someone else. I have found in my two decades plus of teaching that teaching something to someone else clarifies it for us.

Second, we should seek to determine if perhaps our offense is with the Bible, or with something within the cultures in which the Bible was written. For example, I find the practice of polygamy offensive. It is clear from Genesis 2 and from Jesus’ teaching that polygamy is contrary to God’s purposes for marriage. The fact that many people in the Old Testament practiced is no justification for the practice. The mystery is why God tolerated that sin through many generations of the lives of his Old Testament people. I can live with that. We each ought to be aware that God tolerates many sins in our own lives, and in our own cultures. The fact that he tolerates them and does not immediately judge them is no justification for our continuing in them, or for encouraging others in their practice.

Third, if we have properly understood the text, and the problem is not some cultural distinctive or some sin issue, then we should conclude that our thinking ought to be brought to the captivity of Christ. We may find it offensive that Paul tells women to be silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2). However, Paul bases his statements not on cultural considerations but on the created order. In other words, the command of Paul is not a product of Paul’s misogyny, but is appropriate to the order of life as God has created it. (For a fine exegetical treatment of the issue of women in the church, I would refer my readers to God’s Good Design, by Claire Smith.) Submitting our thinking to Christ is one of the most difficult things to do, but it is necessary for our sanctification. We like to think that we are right, and that our own practices ought to be the standard for others. But our standard in all things is Christ, and it our responsibility as disciples of Christ to submit our thinking to his Word.

There. Isn’t that simple? No, because of The Nature, Power, Deceit, and

Prevalency of the Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers, to borrow a title from John Owen. Conforming our thinking to the Word of God is a lifetime process empowered by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes when the Bible offends, we need to be offended so that the Spirit might perfect his work in us.

Thoughts on Bible Translation Prompted by Remarks of Dr. William Mounce

First, read Mounce’s comments here: http://www.koinoniablog.net/2013/04/an-untranslatable-word-%CE%B3%CF%8D%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-monday-with-mounce-183.html

Mounce seems to think that gunai (“woman,” in the vocative case) is essentially untranslatable because in his view, “it misconveys so badly.” Now let’s stop and think about this. Someone is reading the Bible, preferably in one of the translations that Mounce dismisses for translating gunai as simply “Woman.” In his view, the problem with that is that it leaves the reader “to figure out what it really means.” No doubt the direct address, “Woman” might be viewed as rude in today’s context. But first, the reader should stop to think. Is Jesus being rude to a woman he has just healed? Not likely. So the alert reader should recognize that Jesus is not being rude, and in the first century this direct address was not considered rude.

But suppose the reader thinks that Jesus might be being rude to this woman, as he seems to have been with the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30). Then he might look at a concordance to see how many times Jesus uses this address in the gospels. After all, the reader is concerned about Jesus’ possible rudeness here. So the reader discovers, with a little research, that Jesus uses this direct address seven times in the gospels: once in Matthew 15:28; once in Luke 13:12 (the passage Mounce is dealing with); and five times in John (2:4, 4:21, 8:10, 19:26; 20:15). In two of those cases, Jesus is addressing his mother, which again indicates that it is unlikely that he is being rude. In one case (John 20:15) Jesus is clearly addressing Mary Magdalene tenderly after the resurrection.

So with a little research and a little reflection, the thoughtful reader concludes that however rude “Woman” might appear to us at first glance, it is not, in fact, a rude form of address. Rather it appears to be a formal (rather than casual) form of address.

How is the translator to address this in a translation? This is another point at which Mounce and I differ. He seems to think that a translation ought to be explanatory, as he applauds the NLT for translating “dear woman.” He then discusses a number of other possible translations, none of which seem to him to work. My sense is that there are other ways of addressing this difficulty than with an explanatory translation. First (and perhaps easiest), the Bible editors could put in a marginal note explaining that “Woman” was not rude in Jesus’ day. At the next level would be the study Bible, which could also add an explanatory note. Then there are commentaries, most of which, especially those geared to the lay reader, will address the point. Finally, there is the responsibility of the preacher, who in preaching from one of these passages ought to clarify the point for his listeners.

To insist that the translation is responsible to clarify this point (and many others) seems to me to fail to recognize two things. First, at what point does the explanatory translation stop explaining? There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of verses that might be unclear or misunderstood by someone. How many of these should the translator explain? Is the translator supposed to try to prevent readers from taking the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view on John 1:1? There are two explanatory translations that I know of: The Amplified Bible, and Wuest’s Expanded Translation of the New Testament. They are both awful. They are unreadable in any normal sense of that word. The result would be the same if Mounce followed his reasoning to its conclusion: a translation/commentary that doesn’t work as either one.

The second point that Mounce misses here is what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls the “due use of ordinary means” (WCF 1:7). What that means is that there are means by which people can learn the meaning of the Bible any time it appears to them to be unclear, confusing, or just plain rude. Marginal notes, concordances, commentaries, and preachers faithfully expounding the Word all fall under that “due use.”

So translate it “Woman.” Let the reader puzzle it out for himself, or consult a commentary, or ask his pastor. But don’t turn a Bible translation into a travesty.

“Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time.” A. E. Housman

Paulin Bedard, In Six Days God Created, Xulon Press, 2013

Bedard is the pastor of Reformed Church of Saint-Georges, Quebec.

This is a very fine book. As a quick look at the table of contents will tell you that it is a critique of the framework hypothesis. For those of you who don’t know what the framework hypothesis is, it is a way of reading Genesis 1-2 which sees the material as set out in a framework fashion. That is, Days 1-3 of Genesis 1 parallel Days 4-6. The days are not ordinary days, nor are they entirely figurative (depending on which framework author you read). The result is that Genesis 1-2 is considered as not having anything to say about how God created, but rather make the point that God did create. The material is exalted poetic narrative, rather than historical narrative, hence cannot be read literally.

The book is divided into three sections. The first is, “The Literal Interpretation is Satisfactory.” The point of this section is to argue against the view of many framework proponents, who propose that there are a number of problems with taking Genesis 1-2 literally that are solved by the framework hypothesis. Bedard does a commendable job of addressing the issues, showing that the supposed problems are more imaginary than real.

Section two is, “The Framework Interpretation is Problematic.” In this section, Bedard shows the many exegetical problems of the framework hypothesis. Some framework proponents attempt to deal with the problems, others seem to deny that the problems exist. However, by fairly presenting the arguments of the framework proponents in their own words, Bedard succeeds in demonstrating that the problems are real, they are serious, and that framework proponents have not successfully addressed them.

The final section is, “The Framework Interpretation is Dangerous.” Here again, Bedard is careful not to misrepresent framework proponents. But he does demonstrate a number of serious consequences to the framework hypothesis. Not all framework proponents have followed their views into these consequences, but some have. Some of these dangers are: the rejection of the historicity of some events (including a historical Adam and Eve); a false view of the doctrine of God’s accommodation; the lack of clarity in the Scriptures, particularly regarding fundamental issues; the pervasive influence of modern secular science. With regard to this last, many framework proponents argue that their view arises from a strict exegesis of the text, not from an attempt to accommodate the long age of the earth that is the standard view in modern science. Bedard recognizes this, because he has carefully studied these authors. But it is also clear that a large number of framework proponents are driven to find an explanation of Genesis 1-2 that will accord with modern scientific views. Bedard allows these men to speak for themselves.

This is a devastating critique of the framework hypothesis. It is especially so because Bedard has been careful not to misrepresent framework proponents. Not all who hold to the framework hypothesis agree in all the particulars, and Bedard is careful to note that. Bedard allows them to speak in their own words, and he has carefully cited the views he presents. I would recommend this work first to all proponents of the framework hypothesis, that they might see the exegetical and theological difficulties of the view. I would also recommend this book to all those who have an interest in what the Bible has to say about the origins of the earth. Does the Bible speak plainly, or does it speak in frameworks?

God's Good Design: A Book Review

The subtitle summarizes the book: What the Bible Really Says about Men and Women. The author, Claire Smith, has a Ph.D. in New Testament. Her goal in this book is to examine the key passages, primarily in the New Testament, that deal with the role relationships between men and women. The preface summarizes the effect that feminism has had on the church, particularly in the West. That effect has been primarily to erase the differences between men and women, particularly in the home and in the church. Hence, her question for the reader is, "Are your views on these things determined by the Bible, or by the current cultural consensus?"

The first part of the book is devoted to issues within the church. She spends a chapter each on 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11, and 1 Corinthians 14. This book is not written for the New Testament specialist, but for the general reader. Thus, whenever "what the Greek says" comes up, she is very careful to clarify the definitions and the issues. She deals carefully with all problems in the passages, and when there are divergent views, she presents them fairly. In brief, she demonstrates that the meaning of each passage is sufficiently clear in itself. The real problems are introduced by our cultural views. So the question comes down to which guides our practice: the clear teaching of the Bible, or the current cultural consensus?

The second part of the book deals with issues in the home. Here, she deals with Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3, Genesis 1-3, and Proverbs 31. She carefully unpacks the meaning of each passage, again fairly presenting differing views. All of the discussion is quite valuable, but two sections in particular stuck out to me. First, her discussion of "mutual submission" (pp 124-27). Second, the separate chapter on abuse. Both are sensitive and careful treatments of sensitive, sometimes painful, subjects.

This is a book I highly recommend. It demonstrates first of all that many of our current "gender-role" issues in the church are a result of our attempting to subjugate the biblical teaching to current cultural norms. Second, it provides excellent examples of close, careful interpretation of biblical passages. Third, it presents this all in clear, concise prose that is easily accessible to the attentive reader. I will say that I am not convinced of her view on New Testament prophesying, but that is a small quibble in a book that many should read.

The Gospels and Acts in Chunks

Nothing particularly original here. Just some suggestions for how you might break down the gospels into half-hour or shorter reading sections.

Matthew 1-9: Birth, Baptism, Sermon on the Mount, and Healing; 10-16 Second Teaching section and the turning point of the Gospel, which is Peter’s confession in ch 16; 17-23 Jesus in Conflict; 24-28 Olivet Discourse, Last Supper, Trial, Crucifixion, and Resurrection.

Mark 1-8 The first half of the story, up through Peter’s confession in ch 8; 9-16 the rest of the story.

Luke 1-5, 6-11, 12-18, 19-24

John 1-7, 8-14, 15-21

Acts 1-7 Pentecost through Stephen’s speech; 8-14, From the evangelization of the Samaritans through Paul’s first missionary journey; 15-21 Paul’s second and third journeys; 22-28 Paul on trial.

Prophets in Chunks

Finishing up the Old Testament portion of Reading Through the Bible in Chunks, we deal with the Prophets. Following the time table in the first post in this series, we see that Isaiah should take about five sessions to read. So I suggest the following:
1-12 The Books of Judgment and Messiah
13-23 The Oracles Against the Nations
24-35 The Little Apocalypse and Hope for the Future
36-48 The Historical Section, and the Book of Comfort
49-66 The Servant Songs and Book of Judgment

For Jeremiah (six half-hour segments) the following, noting that it is not as easy to divide up Jeremiah topically as in  Isaiah:
1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36, 37-45, 45-52.

Lamentations: All five chapters may be read in one sitting

For Ezekiel, again a topical division:
1-11 The first and second visions of Ezekiel
12-24 The Book of Judgment (this might take a bit more than half an hour, because some of the chapters are quite long).
25-36 Oracles Against the Nations and Comfort for Israel
37-48 Dry Bones, Gog & Magog, and the New Temple Vision (again, probably longer than half an hour)
Or,as an alternative:
1-11 as above
12-17 and 18-24
25-32 Oracles against the Nations
33-39 Comfort, Dry Bones, Gog & Magog)
40-48 The New Temple

Daniel: 1-6, 7-12 (or all at once, if you're feeling adventurous)

Each of the minor prophets may be read in one sitting.

Chunks of Poetry

I said in an earlier post in this series that the poetry in the Bible is meant to be read meditatively, thus slowly. So how does that fit into a "reading the Bible in chunks" approach? I stick with my earlier statement, but I also think that there is value to reading these books in large chunks. For one thing, the reader can avoid getting lost in the details. I think this is particularly important with the Book of Job. It is more important to get the overall sense of the statements than it is to try to figure out all the details. In addition, Job is a difficult book to translate because of its very high percentage of unusual words. So, with Job, pay attention to the larger things, and don't sweat the small stuff. With Psalms and Proverbs, the point of reading in chunks is to see the main themes that play out in the book. What are the chief concerns? You will probably get an entirely different sense of these books reading them this way.

So here are my suggestions for reading Job, Psalms, and Proverbs in chunks.

Job is divided into a prologue (chs 1-2), a series of dialogues (chs 3-26), a series of  monologues (chs 27-41), and an epilogue (ch 42).

Job 1-14 This is the prologue and the first round of dialogue. It may be pushing the half-hour limit, but not by much.
Job 15-26 The second and third rounds of dialogue
Job 27-37 The first two rounds of monologue (Job and Elihu)
Job 38-42 God's monologue and the epilogue

Psalms. This could be done by simply reading 25 psalms per day, since it takes about three hours to read through the Psalms. However, that leaves the fifth day's reading to be extraordinarily long (remember Psalm 119?). So here's my suggestion.

Psalms 1-29
Psalms 30-50
Psalms 51-74
Psalms 75-98
Psalms 99-118
Psalms 119-150

Proverbs. Should be able to do in two 30-minute readings,
Proverbs 1-17
Proverbs 18-31
(The later chapters in Proverbs tend to be longer than the earlier ones.)

Chunks of History

This is a suggestion for how the historical books of the Old Testament might be divided up for reading in chunks. It does not not include Ruth, Ezra, or Esther, which might each be read in less than thirty minutes.

Joshua 1-8: From the entry into the land to the conquest of Ai.
Joshua 9-16: From the deceit of Gibeon through the description of Judah's portion. Admittedly, there is a shift from chapter 12, the end of narrative, to chapter 13, the description of the division of the land. But the only other option is to read the book in two large chunks: 1-12 and 13-24, each of which would take more than 30 minutes.
Joshua 17-24: From the description of Joseph's portion to the last words of Joshua. Again, there is a shift from geographical description to narrative between chapters 21 and 22.

Judges 1-8: From the death of Joshua through the labors of Gideon
Judges 9-16: From Abimelech through Samson
Judges 17-21: The sad demise of the culture of Israel

1 Samuel 1-8: The ministry of Samuel
1 Samuel 9-15: From the selection of Saul to his rejection
1 Samuel 16-24: From the selection of David to David's first sparing of Saul
1 Samuel 25-31: From the episode with Nadab to the death of Saul.

2 Samuel 1-10: The success of David
2 Samuel 11-18: From Bathsheba to the defeat of Absalom
2 Samuel 19-24 The last days of David.

1 Kings 1-8: From the selection of Solomon to the dedication of the temple
1 Kings 9-14: From the completion of the temple to the death of Rehoboam
1 Kings 15-22: From Abijam through the death of Ahab
(Note that these three readings are probably going to push the 30-minute window.)

2 Kings 1-8: The ministry of Elisha
2 Kings 9-17: From Jehu through the fall of the Northern Kingdom
2 Kings 18-25: From Hezekiah to the fall of Jerusalem
(Note, these three readings will push the 30-minute window.)

1 Chronicles 1-10: From Adam through the death of Saul. Note that this is mostly names.
1 Chronicles 11-20: The rise and conquests of David
1 Chronicles 21-29: David prepares for the building of the temple

2 Chronicles 1-9: The reign of Solomon
2 Chronicles 10-18: From Solomon to the death of Ahab
2 Chronicles 19-27: From Jehoshaphat through Jotham
2 Chronicles 28-36: From Ahaz to the fall of Jerusalem

Nehemiah 1-7 From the news of Jerusalem to the list of returnees
Nehemiah 8-13 From the reading of the law through Nehemiah's final reforms.

Grant Horner's Bible Reading System

For those of you not familiar with the system, you may find it online here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12349985/Professor-Grant-Horners-Bible-Reading-System

If you use Horner's Bible Reading system, and find it helpful, please keep using it. Don't stop on account of anything I might say in this post if you indeed find it helpful.

I was reminded today that in the past I have recommended Horner's system (see the GPTS January newsletter here: http://gptsnews.gpts.edu/2013_01_01_archive.html

I used it myself for about a year, long enough to become familiar with it, and also long enough to discover what, to me, are its weaknesses. It is these weaknesses that I want to deal with in this post. First, I really don't see the point of reading Acts through every month. Horner's comment that if you don't know why you should read Acts (or Proverbs) every month shows that you need to read them that often strikes me as unhelpful, and verging on snarky.

Second, I think the reading system gives short shrift to the Old Testament. It is, to my mind, essentially a dispensational way of reading the Bible. The Old Testament is really about Israel, and hence isn't all that important for the church. You read Acts almost nine times in the time it takes you to get through the larger Old Testament sections (historical books take 249 days, prophets take 250 days).

Third, I think that reading through Proverbs every month may contribute to the sort of legalistic piety that we see so often in dispensational, fundamentalist churches here in the South. The book is not read (really) in the larger context of the Old Testament, but is dealt with as a separate entity.

Fourth, most Christians are too unfamiliar with the Old Testament. Reading it once per eight months is better than nothing, but not if you're reading the New Testament two or three times in that same period.

If today I were to recommend something like Horner's system, it would be thoroughly modified toward a more thorough familiarity with the Old Testament. Working with Horner's ten chapters per day, my proposal would look something like this:

1. Pentateuch (187 chapters, approximately twice per year)
2. Historical Books, part 1. Joshua through 2 Kings (151 chapters, about two and a half times per year)
3.Historical Books, part 2. 1 Chronicles through Esther (98 chapters, almost four times per year)
4. Poetic Books (minus Psalms). Job through Song of Solomon (93 chapters, almost four times per year)
5. Psalms. (150 chapters, about two and a half times per year)
6. Major Prophets. Isaiah through Daniel (183 chapters, twice per year)
7. Minor Prophets. Hosea through Malachi (67 chapters, almost six times per year)
8. Gospels and Acts. (117 chapters, about three times per year)
9. Epistles and Revelation (143 chapters, about two and a half times per year)

This approach accomplishes the mixed reading that Horner is promoting, while doing a more thorough job of acquainting the reader with the Old Testament. Notice that it accomplishes this in one less chapter per day than Horner's system.

Chunking Up the Pentateuch

The Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) takes about 10 and 1/2 hours to read, or about 21 half-hour chunks. Part of the challenge of reading the larger books in chunks is to do so in a manner that doesn't leave the reader in the middle of a section at the end of 30 minutes. The following division is intended to divide the Pentateuch into roughly half-hour chunks that have the additional advantage of being roughly a self-contained unit in the story. The following chunks include a brief description of each chunk. I won't guarantee that each of these will be 30 minutes or less, but they should be close.

Genesis 1-11 The prehistory, from creation to Abraham.
Genesis 12-22 From the call of Abraham to the binding of Isaac.
Genesis 23-32 From the death of Sarah to Jacob's wrestling with the angel.
Genesis 33-41 From the rape of Dinah to Joseph's rise to power.
Genesis 42-50 From Joseph's brothers' first visit to Egypt to the death of Joseph.

Exodus 1-10 From the Arrival of Israel in Egypt to the conclusion of the ninth plague.
Exodus 11-20 From the threat of the last plague to the Ten Commandments.
Exodus 21-31 From the beginning of statutory law to the end of instructions for building the tabernacle.
Exodus 32-40 From the Golden Calf episode to the completion of the tabernacle.

Leviticus 1-9 The Levitical system and the installation of Aaron and his sons.
Leviticus 10-16 From the death of Nadab and Abihu to the Day of Atonement.
Leviticus 17-23 The holiness of the people and the priests.
Leviticus 24-27 The holiness of the land.

Numbers 1-10 Preparing to leave Sinai.
Numbers 11-17 The people rebel in the wilderness.
Numbers 18-26 The last years in the wilderness and the second census.
Numbers 27-31 Preparing to enter the land, part 1.
Numbers 32-36 Preparing to enter the land, part 2.

Deuteronomy 1-4 Recounting the past.
Deuteronomy 5-11 The law in general.
Deuteronomy 12-21 The law in particular, part 1.
Deuteronomy 22-28 The law in particular, part 2.
Deuteronomy 29-34 Preservation of the covenant and the transition in power.

Reading the Bible in Chunks, 2

Now to make use of the listed I posted yesterday. My suggestion is first that you set aside up to 30 minutes per day for reading your Bible. You may say you don't have 30 minutes per day. My answer is, yes, you do. Give up that episode of Duck Dynasty or Honey Boo Boo. Or quit watching the news. Or take some time from your leisure reading.

Second, read as if you were doing your leisure reading. In other words, don't stop to try to understand difficult portions, or to wonder about apparent contradictions. The point of this approach to reading the Bible is to get an overview; to get a grasp of the book as a whole, not a grasp of the details.

Third, after you've done the reading, maybe make a couple of notes about things that struck you, so you can remember them. Then you can spend the day ruminating on them.

Fourth, don't feel like you have to spend all 30 minutes. If, for example, you've read 1 John, that should be enough for the day. This is not a race to see how quickly you can get through the Bible.

Perusing the list in the last post, you should notice that 37 of the 66 books of the Bible may be read in 30 minutes or less. I suggest you tackle these first, in whatever order you wish. Check them off when you've read them so that you don't repeat before you have finished the whole thing. With regard to the larger books, divide them into 30-minute (or less) chunks. Nehemiah, for example, should take around 42 minutes. Divide it into half. One day read the first six or seven chapters, and read the rest the next day. The longest books (Psalms, Jeremiah, Genesis, etc.) may be divided into, at most, six large chunks. Again, read these in any order you wish, but finish one book before you go on to the next.

Here's to happy Bible reading in the new year.

Reading the Bible in Chunks

So the new year is here again. You're going to read through the Bible again this year. But maybe this time you're looking for something a little different. There are a number of good Bible reading guides available online. See, for example, those discussed here: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/bible-reading-plans/.

However,  I'm going to suggest something different. This year, try reading the Bible in chunks. By this, I mean that you should try reading whole books at one sitting, rather than the 3-4 chapters per day that most Bible-in-a-Year plans suggest. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, many of the books of the Bible are stories. They are meant to be read as stories, and you understand them better if you read them that way. Others, such as Paul's letters, are not stories, but if you read one of them in one sitting, you get a good sense of the overall flow of Paul's argument, and the main points of his argument.

Admittedly, some books of the Bible are not meant to be read at one sitting. Books such as Psalms and Proverbs are meditative literature, meant to be read slowly, and pondered while being read. Others, such as Jeremiah and Genesis, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, are too long to be read in one sitting, unless you have a big chunk of time. Still, even those may be read in larger portions, rather than piecemeal as they are often read.

The following chart gives you an idea of how long it will take to read the books of the Bible. It is based on the number of words in the KJV (the Bible version for which the most statistics are easily available), and on the number of words the average person reads per minute (250). Thus, the time-to-read number is approximate, affected by the Bible version you use, and the speed at which you read. Just for information, reading the whole Bible at an average rate would take about 52.5 hours.

Genesis (38,262 words): 2 hrs, 33 min                Exodus (32,685): 2 hrs, 11 min
Leviticus (25,541): 1 hr, 42 min                           Numbers (32,896): 2 hrs, 12 min
Deuteronomy (28,352): 1 hr, 44 min                   Joshua (18,854): 1 hr, 15 min
Judges (18,966): 1 hr, 16 min                              Ruth (2,574): 10 min
1 Samuel (25,048): 1 hr, 40 min                          2 Samuel (20,600): 1 hr, 22 min
1 Kings (24,513): 1 hr, 38 min                            2 Kings (23,517): 1 hr, 34 min
1 Chronicles (20,365): 1 hr, 22 min                     2 Chronicles (26,069): 1 hr, 44 min
Ezra (7,440): 30 min                                           Nehemiah (10,480): 42 min
Esther (5,633): 23 min                                         Job (18,098): 1 hr, 12 min
Psalms (42,704): 2 hrs, 51 min                            Proverbs (15,038): 1 hour
Ecclesiastes (5,579): 22 min                                Song of Songs (2,658): 11 min
Isaiah (37,036): 2 hrs, 28 min                              Jeremiah (42,654): 2 hrs, 51 min
Lamentations (3,411): 14 min                              Ezekiel (39,401): 2 hrs, 38 min
Daniel (11,602): 46 min                                       Hosea (5,174): 21 min
Joel (2,033): 8 min                                               Amos (4,216): 17 min
Obadiah (669): 3 min                                          Jonah (1,320): 5 min
Micah (3,152): 13 min                                         Nahum (1,284): 5 min
Habakkuk (1,475): 6 min                                     Zephaniah (1,616): 6 min
Haggai (1,130): 5 min                                          Zechariah (6,443): 26 min
Malachi (1,781): 7 min                                         Matthew (23,343): 1 hr, 34 min
Mark (14,949): 1 hr                                             Luke (25,640): 1 hr, 43 min
John (18,658): 1 hr, 15 min                                  Acts (24,229): 1 hr, 37 min
Romans (9,422): 38 min                                       1 Corinthians (9,462): 38 min
2 Corinthians (6,046): 24 min                                Galatians (3,084): 12 min
Ephesians (3,022): 12 min                                     Philippians (2,183): 9 min
Colossians (1,979): 8 min                                      1 Thessalonians (1,837): 7 min
2 Thessalonians (1,022): 4 min                               1 Timothy (2,244): 9 min
2 Timothy (1,666): 7 min                                       Titus (896): 4 min
Philemon (430): 2 min                                            Hebrews (6,897): 28 min
James (2,304): 9 min                                             1 Peter (2,476): 10 min
2 Peter (1,553): 6 min                                            1 John (2,517): 10 min
2 John (298): 1 min                                                3 John (294): 1 min
Jude (608): 2 min                                                   Revelation (11,952): 48 min

2012 PCA GA Insider Movement and Bible Translation

One of the most important things that this GA did was to approve the partial report of the Ad Interim Committee on Insider Movements, and to continue the work of the committee for another year. The partial report can be read here: http://www.pcaac.org/Ad%20Interim%20on%20Insider%20Movements%20Report%205-17-12.pdf and I strongly urge all PCA elders, at least, to read it. If you are unfamiliar with "insider movements" World magazine has a helpful article here: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17944 with a follow-up article here: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18687

The matter at issue is not only Bible translation, but evangelism to Muslims. I'm sure that PCA churches want to see the gospel preached to Muslims, not only here in the US, but around the world. However, they want to see it done properly. It is questionable whether insider movements preach the gospel properly, hence the committee, hence the report.

Many Christians fail to recognize that Muslims believe a great deal about Jesus, and it is very easy to end up with a Muslim who is still a Muslim, with a thin veneer of Christianity.

2012 PCA GA (5) Intinction and Paedocommunion

Two other issues addressed at this year's GA are intinction and paedocommunion. The first is a liturgical oddity in which  the Lord's Supper is taken by dipping the bread in the wine (or grape juice), thus taking both elements together. It is apparently practiced in a number of churches in the denomination.Overture 30 from Savannah River Presbytery proposed amending BCO 58-5 with the addition of the words, "Intinction, because it conflates Jesus' two sacramental actions, is not an appropriate method for observing the Lord's Supper." The Overtures Committee proposed that this amendment be rejected. A minority report from the Overtures Committee proposed an amended form of Savannah River Presbytery's overture, replacing the addition given above with the statement, "As Christ has instituted the Lord's Supper in two sacramental actions, the communicants are to eat the bread and drink the cup in separate actions." This proposal passed by a vote of 348-334. The next step for this change to be introduced into the BCO is for it to be approved by two-thirds of the presbyteries. Given the apparently widespread character of the practice, achieving passage in two-thirds of the presbyteries seems unlikely. I will be posting more on intinction in later posts.

Paedocommunion is the idea that very young children, perhaps even infants (the age varies with regard to the advocates of the position), ought to be given the Lord's Supper. This issue came to the GA from the RPR Committee, which brought reports (including minority reports concerning three presbyteries). Since the responses of the RPR did not appear to be consistent with one another, the whole thing was sent back to the RPR, to bring a new, self-consistent report next year. The issue is that some presbyteries allow men to hold this as an exception, but not allowing them to teach it. Other presbyteries have allowed it as an acception that men are allowed to teach, but they may not practice it, because it is contrary to the theology of the sacrament as that is expressed in the Westminster Standards. The question arising is whether a man ought to be allowed to teach that which is contrary to the standards he professes to be guided by.

These issues are not going away, and while they may not be as deleterious to the health of the church as the teaching of theistic evolution, they are nonetheless deleterious to the unity of the church. It would be good for all PCA members to make these things a matter of serious prayer in the year ahead.

2012 PCA GA (4) In Thesi Statements, Theistic Evolution, and Historical Adam

This year's GA received two overtures requesting the GA to make an in thesi statement opposing theistic evolution and affirming the distinct creation of Adam directly by God. One was Overture 10 from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, the other was Overture 29 From Savannah River Presbytery. Opposing these was Overture 26 from Potomac Presbytery that stated that our confessional documents are already clear on these issue, hence a statement affirming them from the GA was unnecessary. Overture 26 was passed, and the other two overtures were answered with reference to the approval of Overture 26.

That sounds simple, but some of the language may be unclear to most readers. First, regarding in thesi statements. What are they, and what do they accomplish? In Presbyterian government, a ruling body, such as the GA (but this would also include sessions and presbyteries) makes formal statements in two ways: first, by  the judgment of the court in a judicial case; second, by issuing a statement that deals with some issue in the abstract, but does not deal with a particular case. These latter statements are known as in thesi statements. For a full discussion of them, I would refer the reader to the article by C. N. Willborn in the first (2005) issue of The Confessional Presbyterian.

Judgments made in judicial cases are considered binding on lower courts, and serve as precedent for future cases. In thesi statements are generally considered non-binding, but serve to provide "pious advice" from the higher court to lower courts (again, a fuller understanding of the issues may be found in Willborn's article). All three of the overtures acknowledged that the PCA (and its predecessor denominations) had made in thesi statements on these and related topics in the past. Hence, it would certainly not have been out of accord with PCA practice to issue another in thesi statement.


I went into this debate fully resolved to vote against Overture 26, and hence in favor of Overtures 10 and 29. However, as the debate progressed, it became clear to me that while in thesi statements had been made in the past, particularly in the PCUS (the immediate parent denomination of the PCA), they had had little effect on the progress of the teaching in that denomination of theistic evolution and of the denial of Adam as a historic person directly created by God. In other words, it appeared to me that those who held opinions contrary to the confessional standards of the church simply ignored those standards and taught as they would. Meanwhile, those who held to the confessional standards seem to have been comforted by the fact that the denomination had repeatedly made in thesi statements on these issues, and assumed, at some level, that the problem was taken care of. Thus, men teaching contrary to the standards were not charged and the loosening of doctrinal commitments continued in that denomination. The fact that in 2012 overtures came up asking for an in thesi statement against theistic evolution, and affirming the direct creation by God of the historic person Adam indicated to me that previous statement have in fact had little effect in slowing the spread of this kind of teaching in the PCA. Hence, the only recourse is judicial, in which the judgment of the church courts then become binding on the lower courts, and serve as precedent in similar cases. As a result, I voted with the majority, to affirm Overture 26 and to deny Overtures 10 and 29.


For a different view on this issue, I would highly recommend the podcast conversation with Richard D. Phillips at http://www.gpts.edu/podcast/Broadcast17_(Phillips).mp3

Thoughts on the 2012 PCA GA (3)

Now we move to the hard stuff. But first a little background as to how GA functions. Monday and Tuesday are given over to the work of the Committees of Commissioners. These review the reports of the Permanent Committees of the General Assembly (such things as Mission to North America and Mission to the World) and make recommendations that the Assembly will vote on. These Committees of Commissioners also includes the Committee on Overtures, about which more later. 


Tuesday evening the Assembly officially begins, with the opening worship and the election of the new moderator. Wednesday morning begins the information reports of the permanent committees (with all due respect to these committees, most of the commissioners [attendees] consider these to be nothing more than glorified infomercials) telling about what the committee has done during the past year. Thursday is the day on which the bulk of Assembly business is transacted. This, year, though the report of the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records was docketed for Wednesday afternoon at 1:30, it was postponed until Thursday morning at 9:30, so that commissioners would have time to review the report.


Review of Presbytery Records (RPR)


The primary issue this year coming out of RPR had to do with paedocommunion. For those who don't know, paedocommunion is the view that any baptized member of the church ought also to be given the Lord's Supper. There are variations among those who hold to this view, with some eschewing infant communion, but arguing that children as young as two or three could make a credible profession of faith, and hence should be allowed to the Lord's Table. This view is an exception to the doctrinal standards of the PCA. Three presbyteries had approved candidates for ordination who held to paedocommunion. One had been cited last year for the action, and had responded to the RPR. The majority of the members of RPR determined that the response from this presbytery was satisfactory, in that while the ordinand would be allowed to teach his view, he would not practice it. A minority considered that response unsatisfactory, and brought a minority report to the GA. After some debate, the GA decided to kick the issue back to RPR, to bring back a new report next year.


Frankly, I'm not sure what the commissioners to GA thought they were accomplishing by the action. RPR next year will be made up largely of the same members (it takes a special breed of elder to serve on RPR, and the same men tend to get reelected after the end of their three-year term), who will still be holding the same views. There will be a majority report and a minority report, and it will come back to GA next year. All in all, an unsatisfactory action on the part of GA. Perhaps some were thinking that the issue will somehow go away in the next year. If so, they were dreaming.

Thoughts on the 2012 PCA GA (2)

The Standing Judicial Commission

In addition to the Committee on Overtures, and the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records, the other body that does a great deal of work for GA is the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). The difference between a committee and a commission is that the former "is appointed to examine, consider, and report" while a commission "is authorized to deliberate upon and concluded the business referred to it" (Book of Church Order [BCO] 15-1). As one might assume, the SJC deals with any judicial case that makes its way to the denominational level. The work of the SJC is summarized in BCO Chapter 15 and the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) Article 17. Except in certain specified circumstances, the SJC decisions are the decisions of the GA, end hence are not reviewed of voted upon by the GA. Thus, while the members of the SJC do a great deal of work, they generally receive no attention for it. For example, this year there were 28 cases before the SJC. Two of those were dismissed. Five were ruled out of order for various reasons. Seven were still in the process of adjudication by the time GA met, and four cases were waiting to be assigned to a panel for adjudication. The remaining  ten, with their decisions, were reported to the GA this year (Pp 2003-2051 of the Commissioner Handbook) and will be in the published minutes of GA. If you know anyone on SJC, thank them for their hard labor for the church.

Attendance

This is one of the regular frustrations of GA. The GA meets annually and "shall consist of all teaching elders [TEs] in good standing with their Presbyteries...and ruling elders [REs] as elected by their session" (BCO 14-2). The number of ruling elders eligible is a minimum of two per church, with additional ruling elders depending on the number of members in a church (specified in BCO 14-2). Given that there are 1,466 churches in the PCA, and 4,256 TEs, the theoretical attendance at GA this year was a minimum of 7,188. Actual attendance, however, was 797 TEs and 278 REs. That means that fewer than one in five TEs attended GA, and no more than one in five churches were represented by REs. A lot of this has to do with expense. Registration this year was $400.00 per elder (less in some special cases). When you add to that the cost of travel, the expense of hotels, and meals for most of a week, the cost becomes prohibitive for many churches, as it can easily reach $2,000.00 per commissioner. The total number of commissioners this year, 1075, is the lowest since at least 2005. In short, the GA is hardly a representative assembly. But a further difficulty is that many commissioners do not attend the GA that they attend. On many of the counted votes at GA this year, the total number of votes cast (yea + nay) was less than 800, and in some cases less than 700. In other words, 200-300 commissioners simply were either not in attendance at that particular session, or abstained. Since abstentions are ordinarily not counted, it is hard to tell which is the case. But undoubtedly many commissioners do not, for whatever reasons, attend the business sessions.

Thoughts on The 2012 PCA General Assembly

It is the case that hardly anyone leaves General Assembly (GA) entirely satisfied. There are always things that commissioners wish had gone differently. However, in this first reflection on the Assembly, I'd like to focus on the positive.

Two committees do most of the heavy lifting for GA: the Committee on Overtures, and the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records (RPR). The RPR actually meets a month or so before GA, spending a full three days consolidating the reviews that individual members of the committee have already produced. Most members of the committee spend hours reviewing the minutes of three or so presbyteries before the meeting of RPR. Depending on the presbytery, this review process can be lengthy. The reviews produced by the individual reviewers are then further reviewed by subcommittees made up of two members of RPR. The reviews produced are then reviewed by the committee as a whole, and the entire thing consolidated into a report for the GA. In this process, the officers of the committee bear the brunt of the work, especially the recording clerks. The chairman of the committee then presents the report to the GA, and field questions or comments from the floor. For the three years I have been on the committee, Per Almquist of Northern New England Presbytery has been the chairman, and he has done a marvelous job. So if you know Per, give him the thanks of the Assembly.

The Committee on Overtures (CO) meets just prior to the Assembly and reviews all the overture to the GA that have come from the presbyteries since the preceding GA. This year, there were 44 overtures. While some of these overtures are rubber-stamp considerations (for example, overtures requesting the re-drawing of presbytery boundaries) most of them are substantive, and require a great deal of time. The Committee is often pushed hard to finish their work before the Assembly begins. As with RPR, the chairman of the Committee on Overtures then presents the report to GA, dealing with questions from the floor. This year's chairman, Frederick "Jay" Neikirk of Ascension Presbytery did a great job. Again, those of you who know Jay, extend to him the thanks of the Assembly.

The situation for both committees was complicated this year by the fact that more than one minority report accompanied the committee report. For those who don't know the arcana of GA Committees, each committee presents a recommendation to the Assembly on each of the matters with which it deals. Thus the CO presents a recommendation on each of the overtures it dealt with, while the RPR presents a recommendation regarding each of the presbyteries of the denomination (this year there were close to eighty presbytery recommendations). Generally, the recommendations are virtually unanimous. However, when there is a strong minority opposed to the recommendation of the committee, that minority will usually present a minority report. It will then be the responsibility of the GA to choose between the committee recommendation and the minority report.

Translation Notes 3: Psalm 100:3

I apologize at the beginning that this is a somewhat technical post, but many of them will be, due to the nature of the case.

So. Why is it that some translations of Psalm 100:3 have “and we are his,” while others have “and not we ourselves”? In short, because of the Ketiv-Qere (see Translation Notes 2). The consonantal Hebrew text (the Ketiv) in Psalm 100:3 has the word lw’ (note the apostrophe, as it stands for a Hebrew consonant), which means “not.” But the Masoretic scribes have it marked to indicate that it should be read (the Qere) as lw (note: no apostrophe), which means “to him” or “his.” Some translations have followed the advice of the Masoretic scribes, and translated according to the Qere (ESV, HCSB, NLT, NIV84, NIV11), while others (NKJV, NASB, NASBUpdate) have followed the Ketiv. The question is why there is not unity, with all following the Qere.

The answer is that the rest of the textual evidence is mixed. The manuscript that underlies the text of the academic Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) has the Ketiv and Qere as noted above. However, many other Hebrew manuscripts have the Qere written into the text. That is, those manuscripts have no Ketiv-Qere marking. The Septuagint (LXX) has “and not we ourselves” which indicates either that the translator followed the Ketiv, or in the text he translated from there was no Qere marking. In addition, the Vulgate follows the Ketiv. Perhaps it too was translated from a text not having the Qere marking, or perhaps it was influenced by the LXX. The Targum of the Psalms has “we are his,” as does Jerome in a translation of the Psalms that he did separately from his translation of the Vulgate.

As a result, the evidence is mixed, and translation committees have simply come to different conclusions as to which reading should be preferred. However, the reader should note that neither translation is problematic from a theological point of view. We certainly belong to God, and we certainly did not make ourselves.