At any rate, indulge me while I recalibrate our discussion. The conversation they began is an important one for all preachers ... how to understand "transformation"? Or what causes a transformation of the mind of a man?
ORIGINAL INTERCOURSE
HOW ARE WE TRANSFORMED?
Adrian chose Romans 12:1 to kick this off, specifically the clause "be transformed by the renewal of your mind." His open forum inquiry was "how does this happen?"
Remember neither John Schroeder nor I is a psychiatrist but brother Warnock is (thus confirming the existence of God)! So this quote from his first post won't surprise anyone ...
Our brains are neural networks that create associations and structures between words and concepts - it is in my view those very associations that good preaching is designed to change.
I certainly agree, with the following caveat: the Holy Spirit's absence in Adrian's post is apparent not real. If I thought he believed "good preaching" could change anything without the agency of the Holy Spirit, I'd be all over it like rust on the Michigan family car.
BLOGOTIONAL ENTERS
John entered the discussion of Romans 12 at Romans 8:3-8, specifically with verses 5-7 ...
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.
... contending God causes transformation through our mental state, freeing us from the Law; I read mind as heart and vice versa. Hoorah, John!
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Adrian followed his earlier post with "part 2" - and opened with this proposition, "transforming (metamorphoosthe) the mind is the primary goal of preaching." This is an unintended change in focus from his original post where he said, "The crucial thing to our sanctification is the renewal (anakaheenosei) of our minds." The former is a verb the latter a noun.
I later learned Adrian uses "preaching" and "proclamation" synonymously. This is not strange since they usually derive from the same root (kerusso). I don't agree with this thesis though (see later).
WHAT WE REALLY CARE ABOUT
He then hones in on what we preachers really care about ...
What is more important is how we change the very thinking processes of our hearers.
This is, as J. Vernon McGee so often said "where the rubber meets the road." If we are preaching or proclaiming the Good News in any way but with intention we are, as Paul suggested, "preaching in vain."
Adrian then introduced a simple psychological test to illustrate his contention that "what we hear shapes our cognitive associations." I didn't identify with his contention, probably because it seems to paint God into a stimulus-response corner.
MILTON STANLEY CONNECTS
Milton of Transforming Sermons left the following comment ...
Yes, the Holy Spirit changes hearts, but uses both preaching and preachers as instrument of that change.
This is true but incomplete ... like many of our Sunday morning services, at the end, when the people look at one another and say, "Okay, but ... so?"
As I said earlier, regarding Adrian's contention that the chief end of proclamation is transforming the mind, I don't agree. The chief end of man, including preachers, is to glorify God! [Westminster Shorter Catechism]
TRANSFORMED OR RENEWED?
TRANSFORMATION COMES FROM RENEWAL
Read Adrian's text again. What has happened here is that we've taken a text and misread it. Romans 12:1, 2 is dealing with a believer's sacrificial worship as a type of a whole burnt offering. The transformation, Paul says, comes from the renewal not the other way around, and the worshipper's "reasonable act of worship" is whole creature sacrifice. What David speaks to after his confession in Psalm 51.
Also, preaching is not anywhere in the text, nor is it in the context. But transformation is Adrian's focus not preaching per se. I made the rather stupid mistake of assuming Adrian was using Romans 10:17 as his text ("faith comes from hearing, and hearing comes from the word concerning Christ"), thus I segued to "the fear of the Lord" [Romans 3:18].
Likewise, John falls into the same reading trap in his next post with this statement ...
I have to be honest, I am skeptical. When the Apostle Paul speaks of being "renewed by the transforming of our minds," I think he is speaking of a process that occurs to the whole being that simple begins in our mind. "renewal" is the end desire, transformed minds are but the starting point.
On one point I agree, "the whole being" IS involved BUT his whole meaning is perverted by the reversal of the terms "renewal" and "transformed." We must show greater care in our use of the Word of God, since "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" [John 1:14].
John pushes the error forward into his excellent illustration of the non-linear quality of most processes, thus destroying his own argument. The terminus a quo is not the transformation of our minds, it is the renewal of our minds (the text reads "by the renewing of") ... and that renewal "comes from hearing, and hearing comes from the word (rhema - message) of Christ" [Romans 10:17]. Fortunately, John swings back to renewal when he says "to keep the renewal going."
TRANSFORMATION OR SALVATION?
HEART-FEAR OF THE LORD
It is here that I entered in, contending that renewal of the mind cannot take place for anyone beyond the age of accountability until "the fear of the Lord" has reasserted itself in the heart of that individual.
John was right in reminding me that there are indeed people who've never had a knee shaking experience with the living God ... this is because many entered the Kingdom as a "little one."
I contend "the fear of the Lord" is renewed or refreshed by the word concerning Christ [Romans 10:17], BUT I also contend life's daily grind can do the same thing, yet always on the basis of a reminder of what we've heard preached or proclaimed or spoken from or about the Word made flesh [John 1:14].
The others I contend have never known the King, they are just practicing the righteousness of decent people as Paul points out in Romans 2:14, 15; it is difficult, as Blogotional implies, to admit that really decent people are doomed ... but they are! See Adrian's reference to JollyBlogger's quote of Whitefield re the absence of transformation in some who are "zealous for orthodox principles."
SALVATION OR DAMNATION?
RELIGIOUS GESTAPO
It is here, I believe, that the religious Gestapo in our churches have intimidated the pulpit and diluted the Word, both "in season and out of season" [2 Timothy 4:2; "reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction"].
In reaction to Whitefield's words, Adrian says, "These words are terrifying - a man can be apparently a Christian but never really saved." That's it, the salvation of many is apparent but not authentic! But then he goes right back to speaking of "transformation" being the result of the spoken word of God. No! It is the "renewal of (our) mind" that results in transformation. We should recall that to a first century Jew the mind and the heart were one and the same!
We must remember that Paul is speaking to believers in Romans 12:1, 2, not the unsaved. So John was right again in pointing out that the "renewal of our minds is a process"; but Adrian is right as well in that "preaching" or "proclamation" is an essential ingredient in that process.
Notice what Paul says regarding "the man of God" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ...
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Adrian is addressing "the man of God" not the lost ... his emphasis is on the sanctifying power of the Word; but it involves teaching, reproof, correction, and training ... not just preaching.
BY JOVE, I THINK HE'S GOT IT!
I contend the function missing from the pew is the result of the unction missing from the pulpit. Adrian addresses this when he reacts to JollyBlooger's post on redeeming culture and says, "That's it! Preaching is about changing the heart" And then goes on to add "there is a way of preaching (read "proclaiming") that doesn't just speak to our mind."
Adrian asks, and I agree with one word change, "What sort of preaching works to (renew) the mind and make possible the transformation of the heart itself?" John remains skeptical.
Again I contend it is preaching which renews "the fear of the Lord" in the mind or heart, and which causes renewal ... what did Paul say about the Law keeping Jews of his day, "there was no fear of God before their eyes" [Romans 3:18]. That fear (aka: awe/reverence) of God keeps the knowledge of God, the presence of God, fresh each day.
In their recent book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Norm Geisler and Frank Turek confirm my suspicions with their answer as to why people won't believe a proven thing:
Although we believe the evidence we're about to present shows that the Bible is true beyond a reasonable doubt, no amount of evidence can compel anyone to believe it. Belief requires assent not only of the mind but also of the will. [p. 30]
PREACHING OR HEARING?
BY JOVE, I THINK HE'S LOST IT!
Just as I thought Adrian was onto something he takes a turn to Romans 1:16 and "the proper preaching of the proper gospel that brings salvation to people." I was certain we were discussing the renewing of the mind of a believer but now we're back to evangelistic preaching.
Then, in his next post, Adrian makes the same mistake with Romans 10:17 he made with Romans 12:1, 2; he says "faith is produced by preaching." But it isn't! "Faith," the bible says, "comes from hearing" and then it says "hearing" comes from preaching/proclamation. I know it's splitting hairs, but IT IS CRITICAL to grasp that "hearing" is required for faith to occur, thus Adrian's thesis that preaching is the change agent falls flat.
And we must keep in mind that the faith that delivers God's saving grace is pre-salvation [Ephesians 2:8; the gift of God has not yet reached the heart], thus it is not sanctifying faith and since we can do nothing to earn our salvation, that faith must come from God. Therefore, the faith of Romans 10:17 is post-salvation, or sanctifying faith, and comes from hearing! A different kind of faith.
Perhaps, rather than focusing on what kind of preaching is required to affect change in the hearts of our people, we need to focus on preaching that will cause our people to listen. I suggest we can learn from the old masters ... Spurgeon, Whitefield, Wesley, Spurgeon, Sunday, Moody, Finney, and from the likes of Billy Graham and others who put the fear of God in their preaching. Another reason I shy away from the mega-barns and their entertainment gospel.
RESET REQUIRED!
RECALIBRATING THE FOCUS!
Rather than beat a dead horse, I'd like to suggest we recalibrate our thinking to that focus and ask what kind of preaching will cause believers to listen (hear), thus (a) renewing their minds so they can (b) be transformed to (c) the will of God and (d) not be conformed to the world which (d) interferes with their "spiritual service of worship"?
What we have in Adrian's posts is a genuine desire to improve preaching to the end that our people's minds are changed to the end that God is glorified in the process by the resulting transformation of lives and worship.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment