8 Comments

1. 

   Salaam-Corniche on January 6, 2012 at 4:43 pm

   Thank you Foilbled for your suggestion. I would like to hear what ideas you might have.
   On judging preaching, I have to think of what Tim Keller said about the 3 subtexts of a sermon. They can be:
   1. Look how great I am. (that is to say, the pastor is showing everyone what a great scholar/communicator/whatever he is.)
   2. Look how great we are. (that is to say, the pastor structures his sermon to tell his audience that they are better than most people on earth.)
   3. Look how great He is. (that is to say, look how great Jesus is.)
   I have run this grid by some of my own sermons, and some are too close to number 1 as I think about it.

   Blessings and look forward to hearing from you
   John

2. 

   Foibled on January 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm

   I like the idea of a grid.

   Two observations:
   – In the West, most new winds of doctrine a discussed and sometimes taught for quite a while before ending up in a paper or book.
   – Outside the West, new doctrines are preached or propagated be “believers” and may never be written down.

   How about a version of this grid adapted to judging preaching or other oral sources?

3. 

   Mbuzana on February 12, 2011 at 3:36 am

   1.Carl Medearis says:
   January 2, 2011 at 12:57 pm .John “Missions exists, because worship doesn’t.” This Piper
   quote has been my favorite since I first read it in “Let the
   Nations Be Glad” many years ago.”
   ”
   This comment from Piper which Carl qoutes. . . . seems out of date. Besides what record has hedonist Piper on mission? The Great Commiision has to be obeyed in between times. . . and teaching models the final goal (Revelation 7) as a western-European type Church worsip pattern falls short of that goal and , really, kind of discourages others to go on mission

   Mbuzana

4. 

   Carl Medearis on January 2, 2011 at 12:57 pm

   John “Missions exists, because worship doesn’t.” This Piper
   quote has been my favorite since I first read it in “Let the
   Nations Be Glad” many years ago. Note that I didn’t say that we
   “exist” to lead Muslims to Christ. I simply said that in that
   respect, I think we have the same goal. You’d find it odd probably
   to note that I have been an outspoken critic of “contextualization”
   for years. As you now know, I don’t like to refer to myself as one
   or as an Insider proponent – for exactly the reasons you suggest –
   it sets the bar too low. It focuses us on the Mission rather than
   The Missionary (Christ, Himself). I’m also a skeptic of the whole
   Missions enterprise for the same reasons…. That’s why I think
   that any “side” in this whole debate can easily get off-track. And
   be too “pro” a certain methodology leads the the same place as
   being too “anti” a certain methodology – it takes away from the
   Greatness of Jesus and his ability to use any and all of us. Trying
   to “set the bar too low” as you say the IM and C-5 guys are doing –
   might, in the end, be the same as you trying to “raise the bar.”
   Both are focused in the wrong place. No?

5. 

   John Span on January 2, 2011 at 10:11 am

   A response to the responders. Thank you Douglas and Georges
   for your kind words. On reflection, I realize that post-modernism
   really does not like to be scrutinized. It prefers to keep things a
   bit slippery. Maybe it comes from a lack of commitment to really
   submit one to another. I wonder what you think? Carl. Thank you for
   your kind words. As to your doubts as to the use of a grid, I can
   appreciate it to a point. I hear you loud and clear that looking at
   presuppositions is vital. I will add that to the grid as well.
   There is one area where I would like to give you a
   counter-challenge, and where you reminded me of another area that
   should likely be added to the grid. In your words: “I’ve said it
   now many times – we all want the same thing: we want to see Muslims
   (and everyone else) to submit themselves to the full revelation of
   the Biblical Jesus Christ. How that happens is what’s up for
   debate. We disagree on how it looks and where it leads, but not the
   essence. ” A while back I read a similar statement, and it said,
   “The goal of Muslim evangelism is to get converts.” I think I have
   heard you right when you say roughly the same thing. Do you know
   that the church growth movement says the same thing in so many
   words as well? It says, “the church exists for evangelism.” Now you
   might respond, “so what is the problem?” The problem, as I see it,
   both from your statements, the quoted statement above, and the
   church growth movement, is that all of you shoot far too low. Again
   you might ask in incredulity, “but how can you say that when I and
   the others have just said such a wonderful motherhood statement?”
   Consider this with me. When the church growth movement says that
   the church exists for evangelism, and then turns around and says
   that we need to do everything to avoid offending the
   sensibilities/sensitivities of unchurched Harry and Mary, then it
   is not long before we remove the offense of the cross, sermons that
   touch on the idols of their culture, the judgment to come, church
   discipline, holiness and so forth. The gospel has been gutted.
   Inadvertently, by shooting too low, the church growth movement has
   opened itself up to all kinds of ungodly methodologies and
   ultimately compromised the gospel.. This is ditto with the parallel
   Muslim-friendly–to an extreme—missions movement. Might I suggest
   that we take the church growth movement phrase and reword it to
   read, “The church exists for the glory of God.” Then perhaps the
   quoted person would no longer say “The goal of Muslim evangelism is
   to get converts” but would rather say, “The goal of Musllim
   evangelism is to glorify God.” That would also challenge your
   statement, and show that we do not actually all want the same thing
   at the presuppositional level.. Some want so called evangelism at
   any cost. Others want the glory of God at all costs. The first
   opens one up to pragmatism and any novel methodology that comes our
   way. The second puts rigorous controls on any or all methodologies.
   Carl, might you be shooting too low. What do you think? All said, I
   think I need to add the following lines to the gridwork: #23. What
   are the presuppositions of the author? How do you know? #24.
   According to the author, the church/missions exists for
   _________?

6. 

   Carl Medearis on December 29, 2010 at 10:33 am

   John

   This is good. I would like to use the same grid. But it doesn’t lead the debate that you’re having anywhere new. Because you will enter and exit the discussion with the same viewpoints. It’s a much deeper issue then how you read a paper. It’s about what’s behind your theology. What’s behind how you read the Bible.

   I’ve said it now many times – we all want the same thing: we want to see Muslims (and everyone else) to submit themselves to the full revelation of the Biblical Jesus Christ. How that happens is what’s up for debate. We disagree on how it looks and where it leads, but not the essence.

   So to lay out a rubric like this for discussing this paper you’re referring to, while a good idea, won’t actually change anyone’s mind – not yours, not mine.

   But I appreciate the effort….
   carl

7. 

   Georges Houssney on December 28, 2010 at 4:00 am

   Thank you John for providing help in examining any method or idea. It is not easy these days to remain faithful to the biblical truth. Too many winds of doctrine have been blowing. You are one who is a rock and have not allowed those winds to blow you away.
   Blessings as you press on

8. 

   Douglas Pirkey on December 21, 2010 at 9:12 pm

   Hi John,

   Your grid-work is a great tool and method, efficient. I can see how its application could both render a more fully developed context and clarified specifics of what is being critiqued. Thank you!