About apologetics...

In fact, the existence of apologetics as a method of discussing Christianity may be in part the happy marriage of the Christian faith to the Greek philosophical culture. While apologetics may not accurately reflect the true semitic nature of the origins of Christian worship, it was clearly a tool useful to the evangelization of the Greeks and perhaps endures as a useful tool today, particularly for those who have grown up outside of the semitic context of early Christian practice. There is no way to state with certitude that such a development of the Christian dialog occurred without God’s blessing. Paul’s charge to preach to the Gentiles by its very nature invites such a development.

To deny the utility of apologetics is to confine the development of Christian dialog to the semitic culture from which it arose. It fails to recognize that throughout history, certain moments have provided the opportunity for God’s revelation to be shared throughout world cultures. Communism drove the western church out of China and developed the deep-rooted national church that exists there today. The collapse of communism in Russia has reawakened a deep spiritual sense that had been suppressed for nearly a century. There are examples throughout history of such moments. As God works through his people, His revelation can be shared throughout the world.

As a matter of fact, to deny the utility of apologetics is to deny the possibility that the experience of God is personal. It denies that God can speak to individuals throughout the ages and across the globe. Those who would wish to make a living Christ the bellweather of their faith cannot on the one hand elevate their personal relationship with Christ on the one hand and reject the personal and cultural expressions of faith from centuries past. Those who wish to be sensitive to the cultural and personal influences (mobilized by God to His purpose) to reveal His will cannot in the same breath deny the cultural influences that have conveyed that will to the current generation.

About the source of Scriptures...

There need not be any great resistance to the idea that literature and culture infuse God’s revelation in the Bible. In some sense, this influence makes the unity of content more miraculous instead of less.

So much of modern literalism seems bent on making God as simple as possible. He speaks, and things are created fully-developed, like Athena springing out of the head of Zeus. He reveals, and those very words are written down like a grammar school dictation, in Elizabethan English, no less.

There is another, much more intriguing way of looking at things which enhances God’s majesty and power and teases the imagination to wonder. What if the entire act of creation was indeed a creative and dynamic process directly superintended by God and developing in amazing complexity and function. Scientists might view the physical evidence of such creation and observe the obvious connections along the process of development, but God’s purpose infuses the entire evolution. THAT sort of a God certainly inspires through its creativity and imagination in ways that the “point and poof” view of creation does not.

The same sort of process can be inferred from the process of God’s revelation. One can move beyond the simple view that specific words were dictated to individuals who did nothing but apply ink to paper. How is God’s revelation diminished by the thought that certain individuals were raised up and selected to record their divinely inspired experience of God. Moses, for example, was raised with the best education available to a young man of his age – that given to a royal progeny of one of the most ancient civilizations of the day. Literary traditions and vocabulary from Mesopotamia and Egypt are harnessed to describe the work of God as Moses observed it. (It fascinates me to notice that Moses’ account of creation so closely matches the order of species development posited by evolutionary scientists today, yet Moses had no scientific method of uncovering such a process.) Oral traditions of the One True God were collected by those uniquely capable of recording them for future use. The Greco-Roman world provided a medium for the spread of God’s word throughout the civilization that followed.

One might even go so far as the suggest that the beauty of the poetic language of Elizabethan English provided an ideal opportunity for the introduction of the Bible into the English language. Historians will notice the cultural context of such a scholarly effort, but that in no way precludes a divine purpose to such an endeavor.

About the Lexionary...

This is the word of the Lord. Thanks be to God? Well, let’s talk about what those words have said. Why should one be thankful for them? How are we edified or reproved by these words?

The most frequent argument I hear cited for the use of a Lexionary-based schedule is that over the course of the three-year cycle, the entire Scriptures will be covered. I would submit that the same objective could be achieved by a systematic study of the same literature in sequential order over the same period of time. Some link between Old and New Testaments would certainly be helpful, and this could be done by studying on two tracks within that time span. But as it is, the simple reading of these texts without any discussion or context does nothing – nothing – to inspire thanksgiving or growth. In the absence of any systematic study of the passages that have been read, these words have become instantly forgettable. The ritual words that we utter following such readings become a hollow farce.

About Expository preaching...

Taking the Bible as the word of God and teaching from it out of respect for what it represents conveys several things. First, it anchors everything else to something real and important. It believes that something is true, and from that comes the conviction that such truth must be obeyed. From that follows challenge, application and action. Second, it offers believers a sense of God’s divine interest in speaking to His people. This one aspect alone introduces an intimacy to all aspects of worship, for it brings God’s revelation into the center of worship in a way that touches everyone. Far from unseating personal experience of the divine, it provides something to which to anchor that experience. The Holy Spirit, as a third instance, has tools to use to touch individuals in a personal way. Worship and praise can flow out of such an encounter.

Other styles of preaching have their place and can be useful for edification and reproof. A steady diet of stuff other than the Bible has its own limitations however. Sermons which constantly enjoin one to self-reflection and self-improvement chain themselves to something inherently hollow – the creature instead of the creator. Only to the degree that the Holy Spirit can be discerned in an individual can God’s influence be felt. But this begs the question of why one would not want to arm the Holy Spirit in one’s own self with God’s revelation, rather than filtering that through another. Indeed, the concept of the priesthood of all believers requires no less than this; anything else puts humans in the place of mediating between man and God. Even worship and praise become stunted in such a service, because God’s revelation has been neglected and the source of inspiration and admiration has remained veiled. If God is revealed, we are compelled to worship; if He remains hidden, there is little motivation to focus heavenward.

Supposing for the moment the least possible importance for the Scripture, one can still see that this collection of writings have managed to inspire several millennia of believers and is just as valid as relying on the sharing of personal inspiration from speakers, writers and congregants today. Today’s dross will be skimmed away from the faith; the winnowing that took place in the early councils must at the very least have gathered the best representation of Messianic traditions from the culture of the day as representation to the generations that have followed. The Jewish tradition of judging prophets can be applied without reservation to both sorts of writings. The Bible holds up well enough under such scrutiny. And it is the height of intellectual arrogance to assume that 2000 years (or more) of distance from the events in question offer greater discernment over the contents.