Two Recent Sermons

Mike Leake

I apologize that I have not posted much lately. Just when it seemed that this blog was beginning to gain some momentum (as far as number of visitors) I found myself ridiculously busy, and unable to post much. Hopefully, today that will change.

There are two recent sermons that are now available online. The first one is the introduction to our new series on Colossians. The introduction and conclusion are under-developed in the written version that is available; for that I apologize. The body of the sermon is, however, very much intact. Although it was probably preached a little different than this “uncut” sermon. You can find it here.

The second sermon that is available is the one that was preached last night. It is on Colossians 1:3-8, You can find it here.

Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 03/10-11

Mike Leake 3 Comments

Trevin Wax discusses the influence of Calvinism at Southern Seminary (SBTS). I particularly like this paragraph: “Perhaps there are some who fit the category of “hyperactive” Calvinists – students who are still in the proverbial “cage-stage” of Calvinism and who are actively seeking to convert all other Christians to their doctrinal viewpoint. The problem with the hyperactive strain of Calvinism is not theology, but sin, particularly the sin of pride and arrogance. It is the same sin that lies at the root of Church Growth controversies, when a young pastor enthralled with Bill Hybels proceeds to divide a church by throwing out all hymns and organs. Immaturity and selfishness comes in all forms, not merely Calvinist.”

As one that has unbelieving family members (most are “nominal” at best) this post by Chris Daukas is phenomenal: Jesus, Meet My Unbelieving Family Members

Marc Backes has an excellent point on leadership. He, like myself, spent years devouring books by leadership gurus. He has came to the same conclusion that I have: “Put the man made leadership laws down and get on your knees before Jesus and ask Him to break you and mold you. Man doesn’t make a leader. Jesus breaks a leader.”

I am so happy that Ligonier Ministries is now blogging. Check out their most recent interview with Sinclair Ferguson. (I really want to start reading Ferguson’s stuff, any suggestions on where I should start?)

Can you really develop a sermon in 279 words? One pastor is going to apply the Gettysburg Principle. I actually think I am going to try this. If I can make a sermon this concise then I probably “get” the text. (HT: Abraham Piper)

Making Worship Comprehensible to Unbelievers

Mike Leake 2 Comments

I have a confession to make. I’ve never really read much of anything by Tim Keller. I know he’s one of the elite. I know I should read his stuff. I just haven’t. At least not much. Until tonight. I dedicated time to my first article by Keller. You can read it here. It discusses Evangelistic Worship. One of Keller’s points is that we ought to make our worship service comprehensible to the unbeliever. Here are his seven sub-points on how we make the worship service comprehensible:

  1. Worship and preaching ought to be in the “vernacular”
  2. Explain the service as you go along
  3. Directly address and welcome unbelievers
  4. Have quality aesthetics
  5. Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice
  6. Present the sacraments so as to make the gospel clear
  7. Preach grace

What do you think? Be certain to read the article, focus on page 4-10. Is it necessary to preach in the vernacular? Ought we change words like propitiation, to make them more “clear”? Are quality aesthetics necessary? Is this trying to be too smooth? Should the church toot her own horn, for unbelievers? Is this not letting our deeds be known before men? Are the sacraments for unbelievers, believers, or both? How will we edify the body if we “preach grace” every Sunday? Don’t we need to move on from these elementary things?
I am pretty certain that I know what I believe on these issues. I am interested, though, to learn what you think? Is Keller on target? Should we even make the worship “comprehensible” for unbelievers? Isn’t the service for the believer and God?

The Godly Man’s Picture Chapter 2

Mike Leake 1 Comment

The Canvas:

The first task in painting (unless of course you are Bob Ross) is to set the parameters for what you are painting. Watson does this in the beginning by answering “What is godliness”? If we are going to paint a picture of godliness, then it makes sense to define what we mean by godliness. Watson defines it as, “the sacred impression and workmanship of God in a man, whereby from being carnal he is made spiritual”. He then lays down for us 7 maxims:

  1. Godliness is a real thing (“It is not a fancy but a fact”)
  2. Godliness is an intrinsic thing (“It lies chiefly in the heart”)
  3. Godliness is a supernatural thing (It comes from God)
  4. Godliness is an extensive thing (“It…spreads itself into the whole soul”)
  5. Godliness is an intense thing (“It is vigorous and flaming”)
  6. Godliness is a glorious thing (It is beautiful)
  7. Godliness is a permanent thing (It is a “fixed thing”)

Discussion:

This has no life-altering quality, but the coolest word is in this chapter–bespangling. It basically means glittering. What a fun word to say. I think I should go tell my wife that her eyes are bespangling.

Did you find this statement strange: “though he is regenerate only in part, yet it is in every part”? What do you think Watson means by being “regenerate” only in part? Is that biblical? For those that are not reading the book, let me put it in context. This comes in Watson’s fourth maxim. He is discussing that godliness spreads to the whole soul. It appears to me that he is saying that we are not totally regenerate (perhaps sanctified would have been a better word), yet our new nature spreads to every area of our life. What do you think?

Strokes of Genius:

“A man has no more power to change himself than to create himself.” (p13)

“He who is good only in some part is not godly.” (p13)

“He whose devotion is inflamed is godly and his heart boils over in holy affections.” (p13)

“There is a great deal of difference between a stake in the hedge and a tree in the garden.” (p14)