I went to a local church this past week, I won't say which, and I heard probably one of the worst sermons I have ever heard. It was not because of the verse that was preached or the style in which the sermon was delivered but rather the extreme effort on the part of the pastor to soften the blow, so to speak, of Christ's words.
The Sermon text was from John 15.1-11. (For those who are unfamiliar with this passage it is about the vine and the branches.) Now, if you were to read the passage, the obvious main point is that we, as believers, are to abide, or live, or remain, in Christ. Meaning, from the text, we are to not pull away from him or are to continually remain by his side. (If this is unclear please let me know.) Yet the pastor did not explicitly speak to this point as the main point of his. He instead spent most of his time defining what the second and sixth verse meant. These verses speak of branches that do not bear fruit. Whether I agree theologically with the pastor as to what these verses mean, and I have my doubts that I would, is not why I did not like the sermon. These two verses, while important to the the overall understanding of the text are not the MAIN point. These two verses talk about those branches which do not bear fruit are taken away and burned. My question is why did he feel it necessary to say that this doesn't mean what it says? Christ was known to say some pretty hard things, i.e. unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you cannot enter the kingdom, or go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor, or if you do not hate your mother and your brother and your wife you are not fit for the kingdom of God. Many of us instead of trying to find out what these sayings really mean we try and explain them away by ripping them from their context and using alternate translations to make them nice. This is not properly handling the word of God.
My point is this, can we, and I mean anyone who would read the scriptures, try to look at what it says first and then try to figure out what it means? We can do this by a broad study of translations and other helps such as commentaries, or bible dictionaries, or for those of us so inclined Greek and Hebrew. And can we do this before we go around claiming to know what a text means. Because while some passages are easy to understand, others are difficult to understand on purpose. In Romans 11 Paul speaks of God being both kind and severe. Let me give an example from a well known children's book of what is meant by the "kindness and severity of God". There is a part in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the beavers are telling the children about Aslan the great Lion, and Lucy asks Mr. Beaver if Aslan is safe being a lion and all. Mr. Beaver says, "Safe? No he is not safe, he's a Lion!! But He is good." I am asking that we not try and declaw God and soften the sayings of Christ to make ourselves comfortable but that we rest in His goodness, knowing that if he is severe, and he will be at some point, that he is good and if we are abiding in Him that severity is for our ultimate good and His Glory. O that we would seek not to make our own god but that we would seek out the one true and living God!
I pray you would blessed in your search for Him.
The Sermon text was from John 15.1-11. (For those who are unfamiliar with this passage it is about the vine and the branches.) Now, if you were to read the passage, the obvious main point is that we, as believers, are to abide, or live, or remain, in Christ. Meaning, from the text, we are to not pull away from him or are to continually remain by his side. (If this is unclear please let me know.) Yet the pastor did not explicitly speak to this point as the main point of his. He instead spent most of his time defining what the second and sixth verse meant. These verses speak of branches that do not bear fruit. Whether I agree theologically with the pastor as to what these verses mean, and I have my doubts that I would, is not why I did not like the sermon. These two verses, while important to the the overall understanding of the text are not the MAIN point. These two verses talk about those branches which do not bear fruit are taken away and burned. My question is why did he feel it necessary to say that this doesn't mean what it says? Christ was known to say some pretty hard things, i.e. unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you cannot enter the kingdom, or go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor, or if you do not hate your mother and your brother and your wife you are not fit for the kingdom of God. Many of us instead of trying to find out what these sayings really mean we try and explain them away by ripping them from their context and using alternate translations to make them nice. This is not properly handling the word of God.
My point is this, can we, and I mean anyone who would read the scriptures, try to look at what it says first and then try to figure out what it means? We can do this by a broad study of translations and other helps such as commentaries, or bible dictionaries, or for those of us so inclined Greek and Hebrew. And can we do this before we go around claiming to know what a text means. Because while some passages are easy to understand, others are difficult to understand on purpose. In Romans 11 Paul speaks of God being both kind and severe. Let me give an example from a well known children's book of what is meant by the "kindness and severity of God". There is a part in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the beavers are telling the children about Aslan the great Lion, and Lucy asks Mr. Beaver if Aslan is safe being a lion and all. Mr. Beaver says, "Safe? No he is not safe, he's a Lion!! But He is good." I am asking that we not try and declaw God and soften the sayings of Christ to make ourselves comfortable but that we rest in His goodness, knowing that if he is severe, and he will be at some point, that he is good and if we are abiding in Him that severity is for our ultimate good and His Glory. O that we would seek not to make our own god but that we would seek out the one true and living God!
I pray you would blessed in your search for Him.
3 comments:
Clayton - I don't know if you intended this post for people who heard the sermon, but what did the pastor say that the versus did mean?
Amen to the rest.
Oh I guess that would help put it into context. His basic conclusion is that "take away" and "being burned up" were not negative but things that would ultimately be good for those not bearing fruit. He said "take away" can also be translated "lift up", as in put in a position to receive rain and nurishment, like a 1st century vine grower would have done. The problem with this is what I laid out in the blog, and he made God out to be our divine Cheerleader and not a Father disciplining us. I personlly believe these phrases mean exactly what they say.
Well, here's my two cents.
"My point is this, can we, and I mean anyone who would read the scriptures, try to look at what it says first and then try to figure out what it means?"
I sure as heck hope so. You've taken hermeneutics (at least I hope you have) and know that's the whole point. At least of a good hermeneutic. Now, there are, as you mentioned, passages that are very difficult because it is hard understand what was the original meaning to the original readers. But John 15 is not one of those passages.
When Jesus says, "apart from Me you can do nothing" He meant it. Now, surely we can do something apart from Him. I can sin very well without Him. But I cannot abide in Him, which is the core meaning of that entire passage (and maybe even that entire section of John.)
See, that pastor feel into the trap of feeling responsible for what God has said. And he feels bad for his listeners who are not abiding in the Lord.
Jesus is not only the Savior He is also the Judge and it is out of fear of what people will think that we forget that. We have, as Christians, often presented the difficult things of God as jackasses instead of servants and followers.
I think 'declawing' God is a ridiculous idea for God will be who He is. Our job is to teach people who He is - not who we wish He was. Silly pastor.
But good post.
Post a Comment