I know what you are saying about Wright’s eschatology challenging traditional end of world views. My college education in Bible was opening my mind at the same time that I discovered Wright, and so that helped, but it was still a struggle to even just follow him for the longest time. Then finally it began to gel.

I first read Wright’s WHAT SAINT PAUL REALLY SAID. In that book, Wright makes the case that GOSPEL is a royal announcement rather than a system of salvation – like I had always believed. Once that part finally gelled, I was hooked and his work would just not let go of me. I had to continue to wrestle with him, and I still do. But It just keeps being soooo very worth it.

Yes, Jesus is now really actually relavant to the world, and not just pie in the sky…. My Christian faith has more to do with KINGDOM/RULE of GOD and all that goes with it, than with BELIEF V. DOUBT or some convuluted vague ideas about GRACE VS. WORKS or how can I really know I am saved etc. And I really owe Wright for decimating all that for me, clearing the clutter of such jumbled hand-me-down faith out of my way so I have a straight path that actually makes sense of the world I really live in.

Good post. Thanks.

Many blessings….

Great series so far and thank you Mike for this true-to-scripture site that you run! This 4th part has given me the right structure for the sermon I have to do this Sunday. Even though I’m known as a scripture fanatic in our not-so-bible-hardcore church (Vineyard, Germany) the temptation is there to focus on application to get the attention of the folks listening. Sometimes it feels like the same thing has been said over and over again (I always get back to “seeking God in private” and “love God, love others”, seemingly regardless of the topic) and one wants to bring something “new”, some “oh” and “ah” to the people. But if the central message is ommitted this is simply wrong.

Our leading (and founding) couple just left the church and now an unexperienced team of four (including me) are trying to run the show, and we look for new ways, like de-centralized work loads in the preaching and other areas. This of course brings new dangers and stuff like this series guides me in this, to be careful not to “renew” necessary parts out of our church life. I read your series on worship this morning (older set of essays regarding the hymn/ccm issue) and this gave me interesting thoughts as we plan on doing a metal subchurch (additional, not instead of the “normal” service for our conservative folks) and I would love to praise God the “hard” way … well, but this belongs somewhere else.

Anyway, thanks again Mike for seeking the biblical truth, and publishing it.

God be praised!

I was interested to read about your distinction of kerygma and didache. Kerygma as found particularly in Acts, and didache as a subset of kerygma, found in the gospels and epistles.

Could you expand on this? Specifically, I was wondering what differences you see between Acts and, say, Mark’s Gospel (which I pick only because it is the one with which I am most familiar), which make the former fall mostly into the category of kerygma, and that latter mostly into the category of didache.

Many thanks.

Jim.

“Much Christian “worldview” preaching runs the risk of displacing the Gospel with applications, and often with applications that leave a Bible student scratching his head and turning pages.”

For decades, I was always amazed at the applications and information preachers got out of a passage of scripture. I figured it was their training, etc., that made it impossible for laymen like myself to ever understand the Bible and “get that much out of it.”

Then a few months ago, my Bible study group listened to a video-led study by Rick Warren on James. As I listened carefully, I noticed often his points on James appeared to be really in left field. There was no way to get what he was getting out of the text and at times the text went the opposite direction from what he was saying.

In short, the pastors were “getting so much out of the text” because none or little of what they were saying was in the text in the first place. It just wasn’t in there. And often all those tangents lost the real message the text was saying.

It was a revelation. No longer could I regard the Bible as a closed book except for the experts. I knew I had to be a “Berean” and really look at the book myself.

Which led to my next discovery. No paster, no matter how much he claims to the contrary, wants a “Berean” in his congregation. Especially one whose Berean studies do not coincide 100% with the message given.

This series has really given me a lot to think about.

peace,