Jerusalem Fog 4.3.2025

     From the gospels we know all about the last week of Jesus’ life. We read about the conversations, controversies, and the conflicts. He teaches the curious, the crowds, and the committed. We move with Him back and forth to Bethany, through the festival crowds, along the streets of the city, through the temple and into the collective memory of the Church. Easter season should be a time to reinforce what the Scripture clearly teaches and to remind us not only of our debt to Him but the high cost of our discipleship. 

    This clarity requires yearly reflection, largely due twenty centuries of wishful thinking and the current tides of theological confusion. A central reason for this yearly journey to Jerusalem to share the passion week with Jesus and His disciples is to cut through the Jerusalem fog. We can never know perfectly the precise parameters of historical occurrences, but we can know perfectly those things God has chosen to disclose in His word. Far too often, even that knowledge eludes us as we construct elaborate edifices to our own cultural compromise and declare that to be the faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Easter provides the searing sunrise to cut through the Jerusalem fog in order that we might rightly understand the way of the cross and the victory of resurrection. 

    If we are to see clearly and understand accurately who Jesus is and what His intent is for His people, we must dissipate the fog as effectively as possible. We live in an age of rapid, nearly instantaneous communication. In the satisfying comfort of the Western world, we seldom are confronted life-threatening challenges to our Christian faith. A people who are accustomed to considering the slightest disagreement to be some kind of underhanded persecution is a people whose vision is still obscured by the Jerusalem fog. 

    Jesus died for us. Jesus’ death was and is formative for the Church. Earliest Christianity was cruciform from the very beginning. The terms of entrance include a decision to bear our own cross. For Jesus, paying the price for our salvation meant being borne by the cross. Not much room for negotiation when Empire holds the chips, and the price of Kingdom is paid in blood. To wear the name of Christ, twenty centuries after that initial Easter, while being insufficiently informed or even dismissive about the nature of the Christian faith is inexcusable. Ignorance can be fixed. Intransigent blindness first baffles and then disgusts the true disciple. 

This season reminds us of some clear points of reference which point us to the truth of our mutual faith as the fog burns away and we can adjust our bearings in the wakening dawn. These are the key focal points for all believers whether those who fast for lent or those who prepare by spending more time reflecting upon the details of their discipleship. 

• Jesus
• Scripture
• Cross
• Resurrection

    We must keep these especially before our minds because even as our eyes see more clearly as the fog burns off there are other obstructions that rise to distract us. Culturally derived Easter practices can easily find us replacing Jesus with family and Scripture with tradition. We may be tempted to exchange the foolishness of the cross for something more user-friendly and appealing for the sake of filling the pews, forgetting that the glories of resurrection can only be realized after the Lamb has been slain. 

    Because Easter has been celebrated since the beginning of the Christian faith there are no real secrets. We don’t celebrate Easter because we are unaware of the events of the week or the meanings of the moment. We celebrate because we do. When necessary, I can make it from my home to the Church house on a foggy day, with little difficulty. Even when the fog is as deep as pea soup, and the threat remains from other drivers, pedestrians, and the occasional squirrel I know where I am going, and the fog is but an annoyance. I prefer to make the trip on a bright sun kissed day. The destination is the same, but one journey is stressful, the other often, pleasant. 

    The Church is in a fog bank, but it is not entirely a natural phenomenon. We have allowed the   accretion of cultural religion to erode the revolutionary and counter-cultural nature of the Kingdom. Anytime the Christian faith has been appropriated or approved by Empire it has suffered. People are often as fog bound as they wish to be. It is time for Kingdom people to catch the Easter vision of our suffering Savior whose call to us is to share in His suffering. Kingdom means an apparent weakness that loses itself in service to others. Kingdom means love over all in obedience to the One who loves us best and loved us most. Each of us is called to help the Church see clearly through the fog into the embrace of Jesus and the Father’s saving grace.

Piano Forte 3.27.2025

     Most weeks I spend at least a couple of hours playing the Piano. It is a welcome break from the brain-breaking work of preaching to sit down to play and sing a few favorite tunes. I have tablatures scattered over “my” piano; some hymns, some old-fashioned rock’n’roll, classic singer songwriter things. It is a relaxing break during the busy days. 

The technical term for the instrument whether grand, baby-grand, upright, or spinet is fortepiano. This Italian name means “soft-loud.” It describes the basic technological breakthrough that ushered in a new phase in the development of Western Music. Prior to the invention and development of these instruments by Bartolomeo Cristofori and Gottfried Silbermann the defining characteristic of most keyboard instruments both harpsichords or clavichords which distinguished them from organs was that the musician did not have the ability to control the volume or tone of the instrument in any other way than how she struck the keys. Composers such as J.S. Bach were able to create beautiful and timeless music largely by using time signatures, harmony, and playing technique to inject a complexity in the music which was otherwise impossible. The illusion of increased or decreased volume was a brilliant substitute for what the available instruments could not yet do. It is because of the giftedness of the Baroque composers that much of their music transcribes so beautifully to more technologically advanced instruments allowing their music to scale otherwise unobtainable sonic heights. 

    The genius behind a fortepiano comes from using multiple strings to sound each tone, and then including multiple mechanical means of muting or softening some of the strings dedicated to each tone. Yes, they used pedals, but that was the means of achieving the end of decreasing the volume of a given tone by preventing its full volume to be heard. Again, it is a tribute to composers such as Bach that they were able to do compositionally what later composers were could do mechanically. 

Now the question. What does this have to do with preaching? Two things, one of which is particularly germane the other a piece of trivia. First, the trivia. March 31 is the day upon which Johann Sebastian Bach was born. I usually celebrate by listening to some of his larger choral works. If you are a novice and wish to listen to a bit’o Bach this month I would recommend Vikingur Olafsson’s 2023 recording of the Goldberg Variations. He pays on fortepiano what Bach originally wrote for clavichord or harpsichord demonstrating both Bach’s genius and his own mastery of the instrument. 

    Now the primary issue. When one plays the piano not every note or chord in a song should be struck or played at the same volume. Doing so often violates the express intent of the composer or song writer. In the modern world where we mostly listen to some form of recorded music, volume is often a function of the listeners pleasure or context. As written, volume is a part of the intended compositional structure of a piece of music. Sometimes when we listen to a performance, either live or Memorex we are struck by the sense that the musicians are shouting at us. Regardless of how loud they actually play, or we play back, we feel like we are being force-fed. We don’t have the time to comprehend the notes because the space between them is overwhelmed by presentation. No one LIKES TO BE SHOUTED AT ALL THE TIME! It doesn’t matter if we read it on the internet, listen to it on the stereo, or hear it in Church. One volume all the time wears out the auditor of any song or message. 

    Preacher, you have control over the presentation of your message. What is the point of expending labor over a text to prepare a sound Biblical sermon, and then presenting it as if you had no control over your own tone, volume or pacing? Preachers need to have a fortepiano—soft-loud approach to delivering the message we are called to preach. There are times when we need to raise our voices or change our tone. We might make people cringe or laugh. Some might become emotional while others detached. The point is that your approach to the preaching moment needs to be as intentional as the writing of the message. 

    For this to occur requires that you, the preacher think through the presentation of the message during the process of composition. The exegesis of the passage itself will provide both a sense of rhythm as well as tone and color, as well as suggesting modulation in volume.  As the text determines the shape of the sermon and prescribes its content it should also be allowed to provide guidance as to how the message will be preached. This textual guidance should provide insight into the English words you and I choose as well as the syntactical structure and other elements we will add to the message.  In this sense a sermon is like a musical score—except most preachers don’t even think about “performance” until they are way past preparation—at which point it may be too late. 

    Throughout my preaching career I have been constantly expanding the amount of material I take into the pulpit. When I was young (and presumably quick thinking) I could use a minimal outline and fill in the “score”. As I have grown older and have increased my concern for the content and presentation of messages, I have concluded that a fuller manuscript allows the preacher to be more careful about presentation, choosing clearer and more precise wording than extemporaneous preaching allows. Do I add phrases, include expansions, and even omit material? Yes. But a fuller manuscript provides more secure guardrails for the entire sermon. I finally decided that there is no point in being precise in the study if I’m going to “wing it” in the pulpit. 

    Some examples. A sermon from a Pauline text should not be too chatty—unless it is one of the sections where he congratulates, introduces, or cajoles members of his team. On the other hand, the doctrinal matters he considers should have a different tone from the personal sections of a letter. Sermons from the parables of Jesus should draw more upon story-telling and narrative techniques. You can preach any of these forms the same way at the same volume, and people may very well “understand” what you are saying, they may “get” the passage you are preaching. It is only through preparing to play the score of your sermon that you, the preacher, can have a measure of control over the intellectual, emotional, and volitional reaction of your congregation. This is not mere manipulation, rather it is simply thorough preparation. 

    Do I hear someone mutter “Well, where’s the Holy Spirit?” Right here. In the text, in the preacher, in the congregation, in public worship, in private preparation. If He’s not in your study don’t expect Him to show up in the sanctuary. Most of those who “depend on the Holy Spirit” actually presume upon Him and the results, should provoke apologies. Not from the Spirit, but from the preacher who presumed too much. 

    Every week as I write these essays my conviction is simple. Preaching is a high and holy calling and every single one of us who is called to it, can get better at it. As far as we can tell the “Old Bach” (J.S.) had limited exposure to the technical advancements of keyboard instruments in his life. His Musical Offering BWV 1079 was said to have begun whilst at Potsdam visiting his son Carl Phillip Emmanuel who was in the employ of Frederick the Great. The King provided a theme for him to expand upon, he sat at one of the Kings fortepianos and extrapolated a brief extemporaneous theme. He told Fredrick it would only be possible to expand further by spending more time upon the royal theme. So, he took that theme home, sat at his own instruments and composed the final great work of his life. Bach knew that even geniuses should work hard at their vocation. 

Complaining vs. Correcting 3.20.2025

    There is difference between merely complaining and providing correction. The former is often a matter of self-aggrandizement or grandstanding. The latter, compassionate guidance. Being called by Christ and following Him means trying to adhere to a different, higher standard. Because each of us are culturally, socially, and locally conditioned that “high” standard will be slightly different for each one of us. As Christians we have determined that the Scripture is our standard of believing, and when it is possible to know it—the lifestyle of Jesus provides our standard of doing. 

    Hence the title of this week’s essay and the pressing need to try and understand Jesus’ approach to “right living.” The issue is fairly stark. When we look at the Gospels, Jesus spent a great deal of time correcting people of all sorts. His disciples, women visited by wells, Demonized men, women, and children, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians—even the occasional Roman. Despite all this interaction Jesus was not a complainer. He did not carp or rail when confronted with hypocritical or sinful behavior. In fact, He seemed to be the most compassionate with those who were the least “righteous.” And we find this difficult. Very difficult. Nearly impossible. 

    So, the question before us, particularly in our exegesis and through our preaching is “How can I correct like Jesus without falling into the trap of becoming a complainer?” It won’t be easy. In the richest nation in human history, with more perks and fewer irks, Americans in general and the American Church in particular has made much of our discourse a constant whine—a parade of perennial complaint which falls on increasingly inattentive ears. The problem with complainers is that they become boring and those who are confronted by them apathetic. 

    Correction should be a learning experience. That means that for those who preach and teach our correcting should be a teaching experience. Far too often it is not. We meanderingly complain without the slightest concrete notion of any effective change that we might suggest. People know we are upset, unsettled, or even angry—often angry—but even if they wanted to accept guidance from God’s Word and His Church they can’t, because we don’t offer it. 

Consider the following passage. It contains both complaint—by Jesus’ enemies, and correction by Jesus Himself. 

“Matthew 12:1   At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. Matthew 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: Matthew 12:4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Matthew 12:5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? Matthew 12:6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. Matthew 12:7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. Matthew 12:8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”” (Matthew 12:1-8 ESV)

 This passage is well known and emblematic of the difference between Jesus and His opponents. Notice the following: 

▪ The complaints of the Pharisees were personal as much as they were behavioral or Biblical. 

▪ The response of Jesus focused upon Biblical precedent, expecting His audience to be knowledgeable about His response. 

▪ The Pharisees were interested primarily in preventing an action, Jesus in promoting an attitude. 

▪ In this instance Jesus goes beyond the complaint to offer a transformative theological and ethical corrective. 

    From this passage we can draw some reliable extensible conclusions about how we should balance the need to correct with the temptation to complain. It begins with Scripture and how we use it. The Pharisees primarily viewed scripture as a stop sign. Clearly, that could not have been the content of their whole theology, but in practice it appeared that way because just about everyone, at one time or another would offend them. Even Jesus. For Jesus the primary use of Scripture was to positively transform a person’s belief system. He knew that thinking right led to doing right and that the opposite could not be guaranteed. The outcome of the Pharisaic approach to Scripture was not in and of itself legalistic, but it tended that way due to human nature. It is easier for us to blame, shame, and complain than to encourage, recalibrate, and help. 

    Next, we need to pay close attention to how Jesus corrects. He generally does so without deepening the conflict. He didn’t fight even when He was right, even when He could. WHY? Because He didn’t need to, and conflict did not further His aims. A culture of complaint tends towards a culture of constant conflict. The Judaisms of the Second Temple period are a case study of how constant complaint between those who basically believed the same things devolved into persistent bickering. This bickering was so pronounced that at least one group, the Essenes, withdrew from society and transformed their complaints into pleas for God to destroy their enemies. Instead, we hear Jesus whose approach was to correct whilst decompressing, to teach without His lessons becoming childish, ineffective moralizing. 

    A final observation. Jesus was playing a long game. The Pharisees, scribes, legal-theorists, aristocrats, and busybodies would not leave Him alone, yet His tone rarely changed. There were times that He would even congratulate His questioners when they got this or that point right. For Jesus being right was not the point. He was not trying to “score.” He was not trying to win some intellectual battle with His peers. He was trying to transform the world. 

    He was able to bring transformative change, not by “being right” but by being God. Not by winning, but by losing. Not by victory, but through submission. As we move through this long and reflective time leading to Holy Week, we need to be ever mindful of the ultimate outcome. Regardless of what went on in that grain field, there was going to be a cross. Answering every critic, responding to every complaint, validating every whine may have made His adversaries feel good, but Jesus was not in the “feel-good” business.  He was in the redemption business which is the longest game of all.

Around the Bend 3.13.2025

     We can anticipate what may be up around the bend, but we cannot actually know. All we can really do is guess. We cannot have absolute certainty about the future. The certainty we can have and upon which we should base all other convictions is the certainty we have in Christ and His complete work.

     We will have His work upon our minds during the Easter season. We will look to Him as the guarantor of all those things we can anticipate but not know. We will consider the words of Jesus, His sacrifice, and His resurrection. In a sense, His passion was the ultimate blind spot of humanity. No one saw that one coming. As much as people tried, they could not really imagine the impact of His gospel and what it would mean for God-in-flesh to peek into our otherwise unforeseen future. The promises made and expectations shared could never really anticipate what Jesus would do. It was not fully understood until after the resurrection when Jesus provided the keys to understanding all the Biblical testimony to His coming, His vision, and His mission. 

    For our purpose and in this space putting our limitation into a broader perspective is important. We need to plan diligently if we are to preach well, and that planning must be kept in proper perspective. The preacher stands between God and congregation to vouch for the trustworthiness of God. We base our future words and deeds upon God’s past actions and the promises we find in scripture. We are only able to do that because Jesus Himself has bridged the gap between faith and sight. 

    It is tempting during disconcerting and frustrating times to read into the Biblical story issues it does not discuss and to wring from it echoes of what we already think, feel, and believe. The Biblical story is filled with hope but the truths the Scripture contains are often hard. Sin is not a soft subject, nor salvation. The temptation to elevate our field of vision to that of Scripture is best addressed by the diligent work of exegesis. A proper hermeneutic first looks behind and into the text before trying to project forward. In doing the hard work we establish an appropriate distance between our desires and Gods. In doing that hard work we have a guide for possible applications of the text. A guide to which we do well to adhere. If we forget or neglect what the author and/or speaker intended, we tempt ourselves with a knowledge that inappropriately appropriates the vocabulary of faith whilst using familiar words differently. We can never see around the next bend and much of what the New Testament says about any possible future is discussed in terms of responsible Christian behavior amid the temptations of our fallen world. The Bible clearly teaches us what we are expected to know. We are expected to know Jesus. We are to know not the content of the future, but its author. 

    The Bible both promises more than we can imagine and less that we desire. It is not our needs that bedevil us but our desires. It was because Adam and Eve thought that by listening to the serpent, they could, in effect, gaze up around the bend into their own future lives. In making that choice they were sundered from both their innocence and their relationship with God. Even our best intentions can still mislead us into thinking that God has promised a Crystal ball rather than the deliberate road of discipleship. 

    We prepare plans not to challenge God but to challenge ourselves. We know at some point that our sight will diminish and that we can never see beyond the bend. It is an act of faithful discipleship to beat a path into that unfamiliar future based upon the small amount of information available to us.  What little we see, know, and understand is leveraged not by a wild guess and leap of fate--but trust. Trust in the one who summons us into the unforeseen future following Him, telling His story, making disciples. To do that we need not know the unseeable future or see what lies beyond the next dip or bend. We only need to see Him.

Practices and Principles 3.6.2025

     Having abandoned Ash Wednesday, too many of we protestants have also abandoned the principle of introspective penance. There are many reasons for this. The top of the list is a sense of moral superiority, which seems altogether out of character for disciples of Jesus. We should examine any practice which has the effect of helping us perform a Biblical function, in this case a penitent attitude as expressed, for example in 1 John 1.9-10

“1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1John 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:9-10 ESV)

    John expresses and recommends, though the actual term is only fully formalized later, a penitential attitude. For our purpose his is the best example because his words express an elementary principle rather than a specific practice. The principle itself may find a variety of forms of expression, differences in practice which all express the essential principle at stake. 

    The various historic and denominational practices in which the principle is embedded, even those practices which may have dubious Biblical warrant do not invalidate the basic principle—Christian people should be well aware of their own sin, expressing repentance—public and private whenever they can.

    It always interesting, and often surprising to examine broader the Christian community in evaluating the prominence of a practice and its use throughout Christian history. A simple search on the internet asking about Ash Wednesday observances shows not only the expected Roman Catholic observances, but also the traditional liturgical practices of Anglican/Episcopalian congregations, the reformed tradition in its various bodies, and many evangelical non-denominational bodies. Though not a scientific survey it would appear that Ash Wednesday is a fairly wide-spread phenomenon. Whereas in the past there would have been significant chatter among certain religious traditions about not participating in events or actions not specifically mentioned in Scripture (by current name) there seems to be a general agreement (again, I did not do a scientific poll) that the principle of being repentant is valuable and that historic practice, though sometimes innovative, can be valuable. 

    Let me digress a moment to talk about innovation. For a Roman Catholic or an Anglican there is nothing innovative about Ash Wednesday nor the whole Lenten season. These practices are foundational elements of the Church Calendar which evolved over centuries to unify a globally scattered Church prior to modernity. Not to be condescending, but for typical illiterate peasants of the 12th Century the Calendar in general and Ash Wednesday and other holy days in particular, helped orient the devout in time and space, when there was an absence of other reliable demarcations of passing time. Until invention of our modern calendars and the human creation of the mechanical clock most people did not know what the date of the current day even was, much less the time.

    As the modern world exploded out of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the first Scientific revolution everyday people—like you and me were able to nibble the crumbs from the table of the sophisticated. We might own a watch, and keep track of our days in an Almanac, but the big questions of how to regulate our days and hours according to broader, Biblical principles required reference to the external apparatus of the Church year. Not just because that was all we knew but more importantly, that was all we had.

    As Protestantism itself grew, splintered, and evolved it, inherited the luxury of debating the dubious and fixating on the inessential. Ash Wednesday is not the only practice which was abandoned out of a sense of vague Biblical certitude. We argue vociferously about something peripheral, mainly because we can, not because we ought or should.   

    Our brotherhood does not celebrate Ash Wednesday, and for every highfalutin reason, or theological diatribe, or spiritual threat we might articulate in defense of our practice the fact is that Ash Wednesday fell out of favor for those whose denominational evolution culminated in a congregational form of government. In all likelihood, our current practice was derived more from our churchmanship than any Biblical or Theological principle. Ash Wednesday and Lent—whether it was the case or not—appeared to be the sort of thing done out of compulsion and denominational uniformity rather than faith, producing a sense of order our congregations did not otherwise feel or express. In abandoning the practice perhaps, it is inertia that prevails. Yet the practice is subsequent to and dependent upon the principle as articulated in scripture. And that, we have no warrant to abandon. 

    For the congregations we serve, the primary question should be “How can we maintain a penitent attitude, and would we be better served with a practice like Ash Wednesday?” In answering that question, I expect most would say, “What we are doing is just fine.” Is it? Really? Do we actually do anything? Have we thought through the issues of how to inculcate this dependent attitude with respect to our salvation? Isn’t it of increasing importance in an age where the term (Big E) "Evangelical" has become radically detached from the actual Evangel to remind every believer that being a Christian means entering into a relationship with Jesus that transforms every other relationship? Do we adapt practices which remind the communities in which our Churches are embedded that we are “In the world but not of it?” When people look at us, do they still consider us a “Third Race”, neither Jew nor Gentile, subjects not of any Empire of this world but of the Kingdom of God. Ash Wednesday is certainly not the only way to clarify who we are in this fallen world, but by all means there, should be something!

    Our congregation does not have Ash Wednesday observances planned. In my interactions between now and then I will encourage everyone I meet to examine their life in a grateful attitude of penitence. My personal prayer life will, for a few days at least, focus not on the commonplace of common needs requested and blessings pronounced. Instead, I will pray that God’s people look to this season as a time to feel the refreshing, renewing breath of God which comes upon us because of the passion of Jesus. We need quiet times, rooted in Biblical principles, set aside for repentance, regardless of the practices we embrace. But by all means—do something. 

The Big Things 2.27.2025

     The single fact to understand about the Big Things we deal with in preaching is that there are not many of them. If there were lots of big things, then we would need to reclassify or reorder our understanding. In philosophical (logical) terms this is a category mistake. These kinds of errors occur when we misalign priorities or misidentify the categories or “families” into which items should be placed for either complex analysis or simple understanding. A quick example. The phrase “when pigs fly” uses a category mistake to envision an error. The joke works…because everyone understands swine do not fit into the category of “animals which fly”. 

    In discussing focus and diligence earlier in the month we were considering how to maintain our attention during our work, the question we were really asking was “how”? In looking at the little things last week, and now, the big things, the question we are asking is “what”? 

    In short, human beings are prone to making mountains out of molehills. We exaggerate the utility or value of what we like, or what aligns with our intellectual disposition and minimize things we either dislike or don’t understand. Preachers are no less prone to this disposition than are other humans. It is for this reason that we must be ever vigilant about mastering the performative details and not confusing them for the major issues we are called to discuss in our preaching. 

    In proceeding let’s examine some basic Biblical guidelines.  This is not exhaustive, but it does give us a clear picture of how one of our apostolic predecessors conceived of the “big things” essential to Christian doctrine. Bold print is mine to demonstrate how Paul thinks, in this one instance about what is essential. 

“but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,” (1 Corinthians 1:23 ESV)

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,” (1 Corinthians 15:1 ESV)

“Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” (1 Corinthians 15:11 ESV)

    These quotes help delineate that the biggest big thing of all is Christ and the events of His passion. Paul goes on to provide some specifics: 

“  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

    In his long ministry Paul addressed many issues. The Corinthian correspondence is a laundry-list of problem issues and problem behaviors in the Church. As focused as we become on distracting minutiae, we need to subscribe to Paul’s view that the biggest thing of all Is Jesus-His life, death, burial, and resurrection. 

    What Paul says provides a basic blueprint for how we should approach the central matters of the Christian faith. The nature and person of Jesus, His role in saving us and calling us together into his Church and calling to make disciples. In proper theological terms the Big Things will generally be concerned with Christology and Ecclesiology. And I know that some of you just threw a flag on that last statement, since it contradicts multiple decades of felt-needs topical preaching. I believe my contention is correct for a simple reason. If we are wrong about Jesus and the nature and purpose of His Church, all the other “-ologies” whatever importance we assign them will be equally wrong. The Christian faith is about Jesus. If we start, there and focus on Him and His Gospel we will be better equipped to consider the smaller doctrines. If we are wrong about Jesus…none of the rest matters. 

    What’s that? Some of you say, “There are no small doctrines if something is in the Bible!” Good luck with that. To defend everywhere is to defend nowhere. To protect everything is to protect nothing. Focusing on the decor or finishing of a structure is pointless (sometimes even immoral) when the foundation is crumbling. And friends, the foundation of the Christian faith is under attack. Not from without, but from within. Not by enemies, but by so-called friends who would undermine the faith to make it more attractive to some, and those who would radicalize it to make it more useful to others. This multifaceted attack on the Church, by reducing it to popularity or ideology are equally lethal to the cause of Christ. 

     We serve a crucified and risen Lord. He is a Lord who is well aware of our weaknesses-and our strengths. I see nothing in the New Testament that points to the Church focusing on “4 ways to improve our finances”, “Six weeks to a Happier Marriage.” Or “5 ways to Hate Your Neighbor.” The focus on practical, common-sense, “little thing” preaching has reduced many congregations to gatherings of self-help junkies who don’t understand the faith and think that the Christian life is a matter of doing many, many, many little things correctly. The word for that is legalism. 

    Others see the task of the Church as being a moral police force for a fallen world. The sins the Bible mentions are to be attacked and eliminated. Everyone must get in line, even those who have not been converted. The word for that? Also, legalism—but of a different kind. The Pharisees and Sadducees were both legalistic parties. They just had different conceptions of enforcement. The Pharisees wanted everyone in their tent, the Sadducees were happy with the rich and powerful. 

    The signal difference between sectarian Judaism and Christianity is the New Testament doctrine (derived from an understanding of Who Jesus is and what He came to do) of regeneration. The behaviors of the Christian life were not intended to be enforced on those who had not come to saving faith in Jesus and who were not immersed into the life of His Body. And we should not expect non-Christians be behave like they are. It is a credit to the faithfulness of the early Church that “Christian Ethics” transformed the ethics of the Roman and all successive Empires until the Enlightenment. This allowed far too many Christians to suffer under the delusion that the Christian faith consisted solely of right behavior. We are at a turning point in history. The Post-Modern world reflects the circumstances of the first century world. Reacting with anger toward unregenerate people doing unregenerate things will certainly prevent the Church from reaching the unrepentant world with the Gospel. Enforcing Christian behavior as a universal norm invalidates the Christian plea that we must become “New men in Christ.” 

What then is the solution?

“preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4 ESV)

    The mythology Paul envisions is the fruitless pursuit of little things. Some of them are good. Obviously, some behaviors are better than others. We do need to have a correct understanding of all Biblical doctrine. And that means we must prioritize what Scripture prioritizes even if it’s not popular or sexy. We must be committed to putting First Things first and recognizing that the inspiration of Scripture was not designed to undermine its variety. If you aspire to be a Biblical preacher, you need to become accustomed to preparing and preaching weighty sermons that subsume the whole of Scripture beneath the single Big Thing, Jesus. 

    Until and unless we do that the Church will continue be handicapped in this age when cultural forces are capable of hijacking many if not all our little things, twisting them into cultural-driven hobbyhorses that set the faithful aflame but do little to bring any light to a fallen world. 

    Our job is not to make people religious. Our job is not to make people better. We can’t really fix people and our efforts to triage their spiritual pain eventually evaporate. The job is not simple to do but it is simply stated:

“Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ.” (Colossians 1:28 ESV)

The Little Things 2.20.2025

     If we work according to a good plan, we will include time for review and adopt practices that insure we remain focused. These commitments lead the issues we shall discuss the next two weeks. First, we will consider what it means to do the little things. Next week we will look at some big things. Mrs. Beckman made potato salad today. We will enjoy it for supper. Making any dish, following a well-tested recipe is a good comparison for this process of looking at little things, and big things. 

    The little things might be thought of as the details of our sermon writing system. The big things are the broader concerns that give a completed sermon a good presentation, accurate theology, and satisfying texture, and “flavor.” Preaching requires both emphases and they must be kept somewhat separate during the preparation and preaching phases. Potato salad has many ingredients. Some of those ingredients are essential to flavor. They are the small details, which when omitted keep the final product from being at its very best. On the other hand, it’s not potato salad without potatoes. In this illustration they are a big thing, not a small. Preaching requires both kinds of work and we do the work within the constraints of weekly worship. 

    Before we move on let me say a word about the value of these seemingly insignificant distinctions. This is important when we consider the product we take into the pulpit each week. The dish my wife prepared is potato salad. It is not called: a salad of potatoes, with a tangy mustard-Miracle Whip dressing, further dressed with hard-boiled eggs, celery and onion. That’s not a name, it is simply a record of the ingredients, it’s the recipe. When everything works properly the ingredients (details) disappear into the final dish. We have all heard too many sermons which sounded like a rehearsal of the recipe, like the preacher took his or her research notes into the pulpit. Those kinds of sermons feel unfinished. Our congregations should not be burdened with the details. That is our job. If something rises in the process of preparation that seems like a small, piddling detail, taking on greater importance during the process of study that is proper. The process has correctly identified a big thing, isolated it from the focus on little things, and puts the exegete/preacher in a position to determine if it requires attention within the sermon. Sermons are not the proper place to teach people to cook. They come to Church to be fed. This distinction between the little and big things in sermon preparation is work for us to do, by ourselves, in the homiletical kitchen. 

    Let me start with a basic list of research areas in which a particular item (word, phrase, practice) can prove to be either a small thing or a big thing depending on context. 

• Basics of grammar and syntax. 

• Word meaning(s) in context.

• Text-critical matters. 

• Distinctions between author and speaker(s).

• Cultural background.

• Cross-cultural connections. 

• Characterization. 

• Post-biblical theological developments. 

• Anachronisms. 

• Plot-development. 

• History of interpretation. 

• Local, universal, or denominational tradition.

This is not exhaustive but provides some basic guidance about some of the questions we need to ask as we do exegesis and then transition from exegesis to sermon. In the throes of sermon writing, when we are immersed in a text it is tempting to read our enthusiasm for what we learn, into the text, mistaking that passion for the concern of the text. 

    We are particularly prone to read subtle, detailed distinctions of meaning into words or constructions that are absent from the intention of the author. When Matthew quotes Jesus saying, “I will build my Church” (ἐκκλησίαν) there is no secret, etymological, “coded”, message. It is a little thing, not a big one. The word meant assembly. Jesus talked about an assembly and Matthew chose the appropriate word. Building the edifice of a sermon about supposed meanings of a single word (which was practically universal, widely used, and well know when Matthew wrote it) is practically the archetypical example of transforming a little thing into a big one. 

    Why do we do such things? I have looked at past sermons and cringed at some of the errors I made. Upon reflection I commit the errors I am describing in this month’s essays myself. And the answer to the question why? It’s easy, fast, and undetectable by our people. That doesn’t make it right, but it does explain it. Our task is to not fall into the temptation to mistake the little things for the big things. That means doing the hard work in the study. That means following a recipe that does not mistake the preparing for the preaching. 

Let me provide a few recommendations. Regular readers will recognize some familiar themes. 

1. Follow a regular, weekly process that considers small and big matters in proper context with appropriate emphasis. 

2. Writing multiple drafts is the opportunity to strive for clarity. Summarize what you can, explain what is absolutely necessary, don’t dig pointless holes and spend an entire message filling them.

3. The details in the text serve the message of the text. Know the author’s intent or you risk reversing or completely negating this central premise. 

4. It is easier to kill hobby horses if you never ride them. 

5. Biblical preaching requires a translator to explain the message of the text for a contemporary audience. Where you preach you are that person. 

6. It is better to omit something you are sure of than to include something you are unsure of. 

7. Do your best and come back next week to do it all again. 

The devil may be in the details, but not all details are created equally. The structural integrity of a building is a big thing. How the building is decorated is a little thing. The primary ingredient in a dish—usually the one that provides the name—is a big thing. Some of the details are decoration, others are essential. Becoming a good architect is a process of deciding which little things are discretionary and which are crucial. Becoming a good cook is a process of deciding which little things add flavor and which are garnishes. In preaching, clarifying the relationship between the little things and the big things is often the difference between a word from God and a word from man. Be the messenger not the message. Do the work and master the craft.