Showing posts with label Sermon Help. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sermon Help. Show all posts

Monday, May 10, 2010

Help me with Divorce (and Marriage and Remarriage)


My Text for Sunday Evening at St Philips: Matthew 5:31-32:
"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
So...
  • Is this the final word on divorce?
  • How does divorce cause her to become an adulterer?
  • Is there room in Scripture for a person to get remarried after divorce?
  • Historical situation?
  • Pastoral Implications?
  • Best things to read? Sermon to listen to?
  • Anyone I should call?
I want to get this one right.

And it is not easy.

_______________
Pic taken from my iPhone of Evening Congregation out for dinner last night. A local city restaurant opened for us, and about 75% of the congregation came. It was fun. They had to find more seats and make more food!

Friday, January 15, 2010

Help me with Fear


I'm preaching this Sunday on the Fear of the Lord.

Here is my text: Deuteronomy 6:13-19:
It is the Lord your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear. 14 You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you— 15 for the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous God—lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.

16 “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah. 17 You shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies and his statutes, which he has commanded you. 18 And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may go well with you, and that you may go in and take possession of the good land that the Lord swore to give to your fathers 19 by thrusting out all your enemies from before you, as the Lord has promised.
Lots of great stuff there. Lots to talk about. But you can help me:
  • Why fear?
  • How does the dynamic of fear help you to love God?
  • What is your testimony of the Fear of the Lord?
  • How does this message become evangelistic?
  • Who is good to read on Fear? (Besides Kierkegaard... I don't have the time... :)
Any other thoughts or reflections on fear would be great.

______________________

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Sermon Help: The (subversive) Parable of the Whistle-blower



You may already know this reading of Jesus' Parable of the Talents. But I came across it first about 2 years ago: That the Parable upholds as a hero a man who creatively subverts the systemic injustices in a corrupt society by burying his talent, rather than making it grow. He is a Whistle Blower.

I'm preaching on this text on Sunday. I'd like your help. Because I can cut'n'paste it, here is the Wiki entry on the alternative reading:

William Herzog offers an alternative interpretation of the parables of Jesus. According to his interpretive scheme, Jesus employed parables in his verbal engagement with his contemporaries for the purpose of getting them to think about God's justice and their social responsibility. His stories expose the social inequities in Palestinian society that violate the teachings of the Torah and motivate the hearers to live and work for peace and justice.

Herzog's analysis of the parable of the talents focuses on the fact that the "man" of the story is not described as an exemplary person. Much rather, this wealthy man does not deny the claim of the third servant: "thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown". The parable suggests that he is an aristocrat, a rapacious absentee-landlord, whose sole interest is maximizing his financial gain. Only the third servant refuses to participate in the game of increasing his lord's financial wealth "at the costs of the poor."

When he upbraids the third servant, the aristocrat's remark shows that he himself is in violation of the Old Testament laws that Jesus seeks to defend: the third servant has willfully refused to invest the money, which would have resulted in the aristocrat regaining his capital "with interest" (Matt. 25:27). This kind of financial transaction is forbidden in the Torah; see the biblical teaching on usury.

The servant's frank remark shows him to be a 'whistle-blower'. He calls the aristocrat harsh and merciless (which are not God-like qualities). He exposes the sham of what has occurred: the other servants have allowed themselves to be used for exploitative purposes, for which they will also be rewarded by the wicked aristocrat.

According to Herzog's reading, the point of the parable is to show how much it can cost for an underling to expose the truth about injustice in society. Jesus' hearers, for the most part poor villagers, would have asked themselves the difficult question about how they would behave toward an aristocrat's former helper who had become a whistle-blower and had been thrown out of rich man's household ("wailing and gnashing of teeth"). They would also learn from the parable the necessity of not isolating themselves, so as not to play into the hands of the ruling elite.

That is, the parable is not, as it is often read, a parable about doing something positive with what has been given to you, nor even an indictment on the scribes who buried what was given them (the word of God). On those traditional readings, the man who buries the talent is a scoundrel who deserved his punishment.

But on the alternative reading, the servant is a hero, the master a scoundrel, and the 'punishment' a further injustice for any who oppose the evil inherent in the system. The servant stands up, by sitting down. He does something, by doing nothing.

I'm not agreeing with the alternative reading. But I want to hear from you as to your thoughts. So...

  • Discuss.
  • And if you disagree, why?
  • What, then, is the parable about?

_______________________
YouTube is Monty Python's Constitutional Peasant. I am in no way disparaging the view by posting the skit. I just laugh very loudly every time I see this. :)

Friday, July 04, 2008

Romans 7: A New Life in the Spirit

I'm preaching this Sunday on Romans 7. I've had my head and my heart in Romans 6-8 for about 20 years. It is a chapter that thrills me, and gives me so much hope in the face of an ocean of sin.

I really don't pretend to have it all figured out, but here is my take:

The question guiding the chapter is not 'What is the Christian's experience of sin?' (as important as this is). I have read and listened to several sermons this week, and I fear that some have changed the starting point, and therefore have arrived at a different finishing line.

I listened to 3 sermons from Tim Keller (which were brilliant as always). But it troubled me that he used Stevenson's 'The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde' as an illustration of the experience of a Christian in Romans 7. Dr Keller was very close to using the novel an interpretative key to the text. Dr Keller is a brilliant teacher, but I wasn't convinced that it was a great reading of the text.

Paul was directly responding to the question: 'Is the Torah sin?', together with a follow up question: 'Did that which is good (the Torah) bring death to me?"

In other words: "Are you, Paul, saying in your gospel, that the Law is the real problem, since the Law somehow 'arouses sin', and 'increases trespass', and brings death?

I believe that Paul's interlocutor believed that disregarding the Torah was the problem, and the solution was the reestablishment the Law. If the kids aren't obeying the Torah, then we need more Torah schools, the argument might go. And Paul seemed to be showing disregard for the Torah by suggesting that it was not the solution, but in fact, part of the problem.

And Paul's answer to the question 'Is the Law sin?' is simple:

No way, Jose.

The Torah is holy, righteous and good.

So what is the problem then, if disregard for the Torah isn't the problem?

'It was sin', Paul simply says in V13. The Torah, then, is good, but - and here is the key - it is deeply limited in the face of the Tsunami of Sin. The Torah can expose Sin. But to the person 'of the flesh, sold under sin', Paul says 'I do not understand my own actions', and 'I do the very thing I hate', and 'I have the 'desire to do what is right', but not 'the ability to carry it out'. In other words, the overpowering influence of sin in the human heart is the problem that screams out for an answer. Flesh makes a person a 'wretched man.' Israel, with just the Torah, was always and forever overrun by Sin.

And what is the solution for Israel 'sold as a slave to sin', if it is not obedience to the Torah?

In the face of a Tsunami of Sin, the only solution is found in Jesus. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do, and he did it by 'sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.' (Romans 8:1-4)

We need Christ, and new life in the Spirit. Not Law.

Jesus is the solution, Sin is the problem, and yet the Law remains good, righteous and holy.

It was my friend Rob Smith, who first showed me that Romans 7:5-6 are the guiding verses of Romans 7-8.
(Summing up Romans 7:7-25): For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
(Summing up Romans 8:1-17): But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
So, if you are in Christ, you have been set free. You are not Mr Hyde. And you are certainly not Dr Jekyll. Paul says:
"You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you."
Is it a struggle to live this life? Of course. Is it difficult? No doubt. But you have the opportunity and the resources that those under Torah never had: You have been released to serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the tragic way of the old way of the written code.

Thoughts?

__________________

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Sermon Help: Romans 2

We're doing Romans at church over summer. I'm preaching on Sunday on Romans 2. Included in the text are these (controversial) words:

He [God] will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

Some classic questions that you can help me with:
  • So will God save me if I 'seek for glory and honor and immortality'? Will God 'render to me according to my works'? And how does that fit in with Romans 3?
  • What is the point of Romans 2? (I ask because for many Christians, Romans 2 is functionally redundant. Romans 1 says we have a big problem to which Romans 3 gives an answer in Jesus. And Romans 2 appears unnecessary in that schema.
I know it's the beginning of the weekend, but feel free to comment...

________________________

Friday, May 16, 2008

Sermon Help: 'Junior' has to do it all again?

You are not going to believe this: The reading in the lectionary for Sunday (and the text assigned for me to preach) is John 3:1-18: Being Born Again!

Now, 'Junior' went through it once last on Monday. And apparently, he has to do it all again sometime soon! If not, Jesus says that he will not see the kingdom of God, which is a sobering thought.

Here is the exchange:

Jesus answered him [Nicodemus], 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Good point, Nicodemus.

So... Some Questions:

  • What is the connection with 'seeing the kingdom of God' and 'being born' a second time?
  • Is it a metaphor? How does the metaphor work? What is Jesus referring to?
  • How is birth a good image of becoming a Christian?
  • Why should we 'not marvel' at this? (it seems marvelous to me!)
___________________________

Friday, April 18, 2008

Sermon Help: From Timothy to New York City?

My sermon text for this Sunday is a private correspondence from an older Apostle (Paul) to a Young Pastor (Timothy). Specifically, my text is: 2 Timothy 2. Read it. Lots of great stuff in that text. Here is how it begins:
You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.
My three main questions are:
  • How do you synthesize so many ideas? There is so much in there. So many imperatives. Can you boil it down to a couple of ideas for me?
  • What are the 'must include' things in the text for a sermon?
  • How do I apply it to a congregation? I mean, it is a Pastoral Epistle. It is the Apostle Paul to Pastor Timothy, which would make it great at a Pastor's conference; less obvious for church. How do we eavesdrop into a private correspondence and apply it to a church of NON-pastors/elders?
Go ahead, do my work for me...

Justin.

__________________________
Pic is probably NOT Timothy, but from wiki instead.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Sermon Help: Joy in the Morning.

I've been given a text for Sunday: Psalm 30, and a title: 'Joy in the Morning'.

A Song at the dedication of the temple. Of David.

1 I will extol you, O Lord, for you have drawn me up,
and did not let my foes rejoice over me.
2 O Lord my God, I cried to you for help,
and you have healed me.
3 O Lord, you brought up my soul from Sheol,
restored me to life from among those gone down to the Pit.

4 Sing praises to the Lord, O you his faithful ones,
and give thanks to his holy name.
5 For his anger is but for a moment;
his favour is for a lifetime.
Weeping may linger for the night,
but joy comes with the morning.

6 As for me, I said in my prosperity,
‘I shall never be moved.’
7 By your favor, O Lord,
you had established me as a strong mountain;
you hid your face; I was dismayed.
8 To you, O Lord, I cried,
and to the Lord I made supplication:
9 ‘What profit is there in my death,
if I go down to the Pit?
Will the dust praise you?
Will it tell of your faithfulness?

10 Hear, O Lord, and be gracious to me!
O Lord, be my helper!’
11 You have turned my mourning into dancing;
you have taken off my sackcloth
and clothed me with joy,
12 so that my soul may praise you and not be silent.
O Lord my God, I will give thanks to you for ever.

Some questions that might help you to help me...
  • From V5: So, is there a clock to joy? Or maybe a season? ('Weeping at night; Joy in the morning'?)
  • What is the relationship between suffering + death + fear and Joy?
  • Has God ever 'hid his face' from you (V7)? What does that mean?
  • Have you ever had people question whether your joy is real? (God has turned your mourning into dancing; and clothed you with joy, but someone else can't see the clothing?)
  • Is there a relationship between this Psalm and John 16:20-22?
  • Dietrich Bonhoeffer identified the Psalter as the "Prayer Book of Jesus." How does this Psalm find it's fulfillment on the lips and in the life of Jesus?
  • What is your experience of Joy?
Feel free to comment anonymously. And say what you want about Joy!


Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Sermon Help: By 'x' all people will know...

I am speaking on John 13:34-35 at our Maundy Thursday service:

Jesus said: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
So its by your love for one another that anyone else could then pick you out from the crowd as a follower of Jesus. And not something else.
My question: What would that something else possibly be? What do you think it is? What does the secular media think it is? What do Christian people think it is? What do 'Church shoppers' think it is?

By 'x' all people will know that you are my disciples, if you 'x'."

What could 'x' be if it is not love? Take a stab at it and be creative.
?

Thursday, March 29, 2007

'...But I liked the story the folksinger told'.

I only ever got half way through the popular book called Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. It wasn't that I didn't like it. On the contrary, it is a very entertaining read. It was frustrating at points but genuinely funny at other times. And sometimes profound.

I never finished it because, on an flight from New York to Atlanta, I was talking with a Jewish person about Jesus, and the only literature that I had on me was the book I was reading. I hope that some things in Miller's book was helpful.

Anyway, read this expert from Blue Like Jazz and then I have a question, and a bit of a survey...

A long time ago I went to a concert with my friend Rebecca. Rebecca can sing better than anybody I've ever heard sing. I heard this folksinger was coming to town, and I thought she might like to see him because she was a singer too. The tickets were twenty bucks, which is a lot to pay if you're not on a date. Between songs, though, he told a story that helped me resolve some things about God. The story was about his friend who was a Navy SEAL. He told it like it was true, so I guess it was true, although it could have been a lie.

The folksinger said his friend was performing a covert operation, freeing hostages from a building in some dark part of the world. His friend's team flew in by helicopter, made their way to the compound and stormed into the room where the hostages had been imprisoned for months. The room, the folksinger said, was filthy and dark. The hostages were curled up in a corner, terrified, When the SEALs entered the room, they heard the gasps of the hostages. They stood at the door and called to the prisoners, telling them they were Americans, The SEALS asked the hostages to follow them, but the hostages wouldn't. They sat there on the floor and hid their eyes in fear. They were not of healthy mind and didn't believe their rescuers were really Americans.

The SEALs stood there, not knowing what to do. They couldn't possibly carry everybody out. One of the SEALs, the folksinger's friend, got an idea. He put down his weapon, took off his helmet, and curled up tightly next to the other hostages, getting so close his body was touching some of theirs. He softened the look on his face and put his arms around them. He was trying to show them he was one of them. None of the prison guards would have done this. He stayed there for a little while until some of the hostages started to look at him, finally meeting his eyes. The Navy SEAL whispered that they were Americans and were there to rescue them. “Will you follow us?” he said. The hero stood to his feet and one of the hostages did the same, then another, until all of them were willing to go. The story ends with all the hostages safe on an American aircraft carrier.

I never liked it when the preachers said we had to follow Jesus. Sometimes they would make Him sound angry. But I liked the story the folksinger told.

Now... I liked the story too. Isn't it a TOP illustration? Doesn't it resonate? Almost every other sermon I wonder if I can squeeze it in somewhere. It's that kind of illustration. It fits in with the current desire to preach a 'beautiful' Jesus, and it works perfectly with our current language with regard to sin: we are 'broken and hurting' (rather than willful and rebellious).

But my question: Is it a true representation of Jesus' command to 'follow him'?

I don't want to buy it simply because it resonates with me. So I did a little work in the Gospels. Here are the results of my survey:

  • Take a read of THESE verses. They are far more aggressive than Miller's illustration may suggest. It is far more in line with Bonhoeffer's bold statement: "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." There is no softened look. There is not question (will you follow me?), but a command. This is not the 'hero whispering', it is the Lord commanding.
  • I found THESE texts to be more neutral on the topic. There isn't the suggestion that these men have a sense of 'brokenness'. They are called to follow, and they simply do.
  • But THESE are verses of people who follow because they were healed, or cared for. They are Jesus getting down beside and with suffering people. Interestingly, he makes no command to follow him -- they just follow.
  • THIS verse from Luke comes very close. 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick': the captive whose very need means that he is invited to follow.
  • And the most interesting result: Miller's illustration has the strongest case in the Gospel John! THESE verses are all from John.

I'm aware that this is a lot of words for a Blog, but it may make a good Bible Study for some Home Group or something. Or...comment away...

Do you like the illustration? Is it exegetically or theologically accurate? Does it ring your bell?

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Jesus requires no more admirers (Sermon Help)

I'm speaking on Luke 19:28-42 this week at Church. What strikes me is that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem is both triumphant and tragic.
  • Triumphant in that here is Israel's King being hailed with Hosannas while coming into his city.
  • And yet Tragic that this same city that welcomed him as King then had him killed within the week.
Personally, I think that it is more un-triumphant than triumphant. More ironic than anything else. It tells me something about the fickle character of the human heart. It tells me something of the vapid world of pursuing the famous (See my previous post). It tells me once again that Jesus requires no more admirers. He's got plenty of them already.

So please, no more admirers of Jesus. Admirers admire; and Jesus wants something all together different from you.

Some questions so that you can help me with the sermon:
  • V29-34 appear to me to be redundant. They have always appeared to me to be redundant. [The text could easily skip it thus: "V28 And when he had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. (...) V35 And they brought a colt to Jesus..."] However, I have a view of Holy Scripture that requires me to think otherwise. Can you help me? Why are these verses here? Is there any reason to slow up at this point? Why get so repetitive?

  • Why a colt? What is being communicated by a colt?

  • V36-38: Is the crowd spontaneous? Is this spontaneous joy? Like if we heard that BONO was turning up near your work during lunch hour and having the crowds pour out onto the streets?

  • What do they really think that Jesus is going to do?

  • V40-41: Why the change from joy in Jerusalem to weeping over Jerusalem?

  • Are we so fickle? In what sense are we fickle? Can THIS VERSE from Hosea 6:4 be applied to us? ---
"What can I do with you, Ephraim? What can I do with you, Judah? Your love is like the morning mist,like the early dew that disappears."
Help me, breathren.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Help me... #2

OK. I'm preparing for a sermon on Sunday. And again, I'm looking for help. So I'm not quite in the same desparate position I was three weeks ago. But I have another remarkable text: Click on Luke 13:1-9 which includes these potentially offensive words:

1 There were some present at that very time who told him [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
So you can help me by answering any one of the following questions (or making any other comment you desire):
  • Does this text speak to your soul? Your heart? Your life? Tell us about that.
  • Is Jesus being insensitive? Should he go an re-read Job (You know, just sit with people in their innocent suffering, rather than speak up.)
  • Would Jesus be 'roasted' by today's media for making even the smallest link between a tower falling and the need to turn to God?
  • What do you think his hearers were expecting Jesus to actually say?
  • Is there a relationship between Suffering and Repentance? Does the modern church make that link? Why or why not?
  • Is the 'perishing' an eschatological word about Hell? Or is it about the Fall of Jerusalem? Would it make a difference?
  • Is there a relationship between V1-5 and V6-9?
  • Is this good news, or bad news?
  • How would you structure a sermon?
Help me, brethen.


Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Help me...

I'm preparing for a sermon on Sunday. And I'm looking for help. My hat is in my hand, and any nickels and dimes might be of assistance. Maybe this could be a collaborative effort?

Click on Luke 16:1-13 for my text: The so-called 'Parable of the Dishonest Manager'.

I get this bit:
V8: The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.
But this bit is not clear:
V9: And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.

Every time I've read these verses, I feel like I'm trying to push a square peg through round hole. So can you answer maybe any one of the following questions for me?

  • What do these verses mean?
  • Is Jesus being serious??
  • How do these verses challenge the 'people of the light'?
  • Is there something obvious that I am missing? Maybe something in its historical context? Or in the original languages?
  • Have you preached on these verses? Or have access to someone who has?
  • What are the best commentaries on this? And the wildest applications?
  • Do you have any online resources? Solid MP3 sermons on this text that I can listen to on the subway?

Go on -- have a go.

"Feed the faith of the saints in Manhattan." says Justin, opening his cap for anything to feed on.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

"I believe; help my unbelief!" -- Mark 9:24


I’m speaking this Sunday at church on Mark 9:14-29, in which a father in a crowd (whose son has been engulfed by terror), says this to Jesus:

"But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us." And Jesus said to him, "If you can! All things are possible for one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief!"”

I call that a significant moment in the gospels…

I enjoyed this reflection today on 'Doubt' from Frederick Buechner's Wishful Thinking.

“Whether your faith is that there is a God or that this is not a God, if you don’t have any doubts, you are either kidding yourself or asleep. Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith; they keep it awake and moving.

There are two principal kinds of doubt, one of the head and the other of the stomach.
In my head there is almost nothing I can’t doubt when the fit is upon me – the divinity of Christ, the efficacy of the sacraments, the significance of the church, the existence of God. But even when I am at my most skeptical, I go on with my life as thought nothing untoward has happened.

I have never experienced stomach doubt, but I think Jesus did. When he cried out: “My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me!” I don’t think he was raising a theological issue any more than he was quoting Psalm 22. I think he had looked into the abyss itself and found there a darkness that spiritually, viscerally, totally engulfed him. I think God allows that kind of darkness to happen only to his saints. The rest of us aren’t up to doubting that way – or maybe believing that way either.

When our faith is strongest, we believe with our hearts as well as with our heads, but only at a few rare moments, I think, do we feel in our stomachs what it must be like to be engulfed by light.”
Love, Justin.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Pentecost and the Power of Explanation


A reflection after Sunday’s sermon on Acts 2.

I read last week of one particular man's spiritual experience. The encounter did not happen too long ago. It could be the experience of many at dozens of Christian meetings in any city and all over the world. I quote the man:

  • “[At the meeting], I felt as if some active energy were pouring heat, like a warm current into my whole being. I fell into inertia, and my body grew numb; I tried to speak, but my tongue no longer obeyed me and I gradually slipped into a drowsy state as though a powerful narcotic had been administered to me...”

Extraordinary, and powerful, right? Wait until you hear its explanation!

But first, let me make a reflection on Acts 2:

I realised when reading the story of Pentecost in Acts 2 that those present also had an extraordinary and powerful Spiritual encounter. They clearly had a wonderful experience.

The experience itself [without the explanation] left the crowd "amazed and perplexed" [V12]. To tell you the truth, on my first reading [and not having been present that day], it left me more perplexed than amazed!

There were two responses after their amazement. Some were curious: "What does this mean?" Others went down the more cynical path: "They should be at AA if they are going to start this early."

Here is the thing I noticed: The explanation of the spiritual experience was as powerful [maybe more powerful?] than the experience itself.

The amazing experience [quiet rightly] produced curiosity and cynicism. The biblical explanation [quiet rightly] produced repentance and 3000 people becoming Christians that day.

The experience produces an appropriate ‘wow’, but the gospel produces a saving ‘faith’.

When it comes to spiritual experience, is the explanation as powerful [or even more powerful] than the experience? Or ought experiences like this simply be enjoyed, without the cumbersome weight of too many words?

You tell me your thoughts.

Oh, and that spiritual experience I read last week? It was a book on the Russian Revolution. The next words in the account where:

  • “...All I could see was Rasputin’s glittering eyes, like two beams of light drawing me near.”

Hooley Dooley.

Here endth the lesson.

Love, Justin.

PS Don't know Rasputin? Wiki Him. Scary dude.