Patient Preaching

There is a story of an extraordinary man who lived in the 6th century named Bishop Aidan. Bede tells about him his Ecclesiastical History of the English People (731). Bede records that when another bishop had returned from an unsuccessful attempt to preach to the English people, Bishop Aidan responded,

"Brother, it seems to me that you were too severe on your ignorant hearers. You should have followed the practice of the Apostles, and begun by giving them the milk of simpler teaching, and gradually nourished them with the word of God until they were capable of greater perfection and able to follow the loftier precepts of Christ."

As a Bible teacher and a public speaking teacher, I value these words of wisdom. I rejoice when I see God's truth being presented with a heart of love, compassion, and patience.

The Logic of Abortion

One of my favorite class discussions in our Public Speaking class at Appalachian State is on "Building Powerful Arguments." In it we talk about logos, pathos, and ethos, and deductive and inductive reasoning. In order to demonstrate how a logical appeal (logos) can be made with a deductive argument, we use the topic of abortion. I lead the class in an attempt to create a deductive argument for a pro-choice and a pro-life position. I emphasize how important it is to be able to accurately articulate the view of the opposing argument (that is, to the satisfaction of one who hold that view). If this simple step were taken in such discussions, much misunderstanding, straw-man arguments, and talking past each other would be eliminated. Deductive reasoning argues for a claim based primarily on the logical relationships of certain premises. First, the students must establish a major premise. This is an assumed principle that both sides should agree upon. Next is the minor premise. This is where the one logically connects the major premise to his or her claim. A simplified version of a deductive argument (a syllogism) for both sides of the abortion issue may look like this:

Pro-Choice

Major Premise:            Women have a right to control their bodies and # of children. Minor Premise:            Abortion is an exercise of that right. Claim:                         Protect abortion rights

Pro-Life Major Premise:             Taking the life of another human is wrong. Minor Premise:            Abortion is taking the life of a human. Claim:                         Stop abortion

There are other ways to argue both sides, but this is a start upon which both sides generally agree. Anyone have any suggestions on how to improve this beginning point for discussion? Next time I will explain how both sides usually criticize the logic of the other.

The Witness of Just "Being There"

“The first necessary element of inductive evangelism is that it is incarnational. Incarnation means “in flesh.”. . . As a communication strategy, incarnation means that God came here personally to earth. . . . Evangelism as incarnational begins with this concept of presence, of “being there.” Just by being there you are communicating, without saying a word. . . . The Christian community in the world not only carries a message, we are the message.” “The fact of your presence among your lost neighbors is a beginning point for your witness. They are listening. They are watching. They are asking what it means that a person claims to know God and converse with Him. And where we are present, God is communicating. Just as our common humanity ties us to our neighbors, our new life in Christ ties us to God. We are citizens of two worlds. We are here on a mission.”

- Wayne McDill, Making Friends for Christ

"It seems we cannot do anything without communicating something. To stand is to stand somewhere. And both the ‘standing’ and the‘somewhere’ communicate." - David Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally

Jesus' Communication Strategy

Here is an excerpt from Dad's book Making Friends for Christ: An Inductive Strategy for Personal Evangelism. You can hear Dr. Wayne McDill present the contents of the book in the seminar our church is hosting this Friday evening and Saturday morning. Check out the details here.

"Since Jesus is our model for communication strategy, it is important to us to see how His mission is presented in the Bible. In Jesus of Nazareth God communicated with man as never before. He translated His message into a language mankind could understand, the language of human experience. Jesus was, in an ultimate sense, the Word of God to man. God had spoken once and for all time in an unmistakable way. His message was contained not only in the things said by this Visitor from another world, the message was also in who He was and what He did, His attitudes, and how He related to those around Him. His communication strategy then becomes ours.

. . . An evangelism that ignores the experience of the individual person is not consistent with the gospel of Christ. People can sense our motives. They know when we are attempting to manipulate them for our own purposes. They know when we are out for their good only, and when we aim only to fatten our church rolls and our offerings at their expense. They know when we really care, and when we see them only as objects on which to unload an evangelistic “pitch.” They know when we are actually listening, and when we only wait impatiently for a chance to continue our canned presentation."

They Won't Listen!

Moses told the Israelites what God told him to say, that God would deliver them. But the Israelites did not listen. So when God told him to go talk to Pharaoh, Moses said, “The children of Israel have not heeded me. How then shall Pharaoh heed me, for I am of uncircumcised lips” (v. 12). The assumption here is that the effectiveness of the message depends on the how it is delivered. While I certainly believe that a messenger of God should take some care as to how he delivers the message, that is not ultimately the basis for effectiveness. In this case, the effectiveness of response depended on unparalleled mighty acts of God. The messenger’s priority is to take care that he accurately and obediently delivers the message, whether he has reason to expect a good response or not. He can be sure of this: if God has commanded a message to be delivered, he is at work. He has a plan to complete his own purposes. Just consider all the New Testament Scriptures in which God has called his people to speak (Matt 18:15-20; 28:18-20; Eph 4:15 . . .)

Socrates, Paul, and Baptism for the Dead

“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” 1 Cor 15:29

Here is a notoriously difficult verse. There are two reasons for its difficulty: 1) “There is no historical or biblical precedent for such baptism,” and (more importantly) 2) Paul mentions a clearly unbiblical practice “without apparent disapproval.”[1] Gordon Fee states that “at least forty different solutions have been suggested.” However, most of these propose interpretations that do not match the straightforward meaning: some are being baptized vicariously for those who have already died. Whatever they were actually doing (which Fee says cannot be known), “what is certain is how the text functions in the argument . . . those actions are a contradiction to the position that there is no resurrection of the dead (v. 12).”[2]

The very same week I began to study this passage, I also started reading Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates. The introduction includes a discussion of the persuasive strategies of Socrates. One strategy is called elenchus. “It is a tool for the exposure of problems with beliefs and inconsistencies in sets of beliefs rather than for demonstrating what is true and what is false.”[3] Based on observations of Paul’s argumentation and rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would use such a strategy. For the sake of this argument, Paul ignores the fact that being baptized for the dead is a bad idea and demonstrates that those who claim there is no resurrection have an inconsistent set of beliefs. This possibility is supported by Paul’s unusual use of third person (usually 2nd person in such a context, cf. v. 12) and its clear contrast to the first person in the next verse. He certainly keeps his distance from this practice. He goes on to demonstrate that his own actions only make sense if the dead are raised, and therefore are consistent with his claim about the resurrection (vv. 30-32).

Paul assumes that one’s worldview should be internally consistent. I’m sure than none of us want to contradict ourselves. Although we may have theological consistency, it is possible we have not thought through the implications of our faith for other parts of a worldview – economics, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc. It is not uncommon to find people with a biblical theology and an unbiblical political position. More to Paul’s point in this passage is the consistency of our faith and practice. Are our daily actions and lifestyle habits consistent with our professed faith? If not, it is appropriate to ask whether we believe it at all (James 2:18-26).

[1] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 764.

[2] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 763.

[3] Introduction to The Last Days of Socrates, xv.