Author Archives: Peter F Whyte

On Writing Well

John Starke has interviewed Justin Taylor, Collin Hansen, Kevin DeYoung on the importance and practice of writing well. Clarity Seeking God’s Glory: A Discussion on Writing Well is worth listening to (just over 53 minutes), and there are some helpful resources listed from the discussion. I found it encouraging (I’d read some of those books/authors), and also challenging, since there is always something to learn.

Reading on preaching

I do a fair bit of reading on the topic of preaching. I usually post links to the best of my reading at my church Web site in the Preaching Resources section, along with any books I discover would be of interest to preachers. Where I can I try to post reviews of books I discover, since I haven’t read all of them. I thought it would be useful to cross-post the new entries here so that others might benefit from them. (The links after “added to” will take you to the page on the church site where they are listed permanently, while other links are to the resources and reviews themselves.)

Here’s the most recent batch of reading and research (added the site on 31 August).

The priority of the Word in worship

Alec Motyer points up the priority of the Word in worship in a footnote to Psalm 122:

The NIV reverses the order of lines in verse 4b. ‘According to statute’ should come first, followed (more properly) by ‘to give thanks to the name’. The word of God must always be the primary reality, even in the place of worship. Worship concentrates on what the Lord has done, prompting thanksgiving, and keeps his name, the truth he has revealed about himself, right in the foreground.\1/

Just Alec. Just right!

__________

References:

Alec Motyer, Journey: Psalms for Pilgrim People (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2009) 45, n. 12.

A profitable week’s reading

I’ve spent a profitable week reading. Some weeks it doesn’t feel like that, but this past week was encouraging. Tim Carmody put Rolf Engelsing’s ‘Lesenrevolution’ at the top of his 10 Reading Revolutions Before E-Books\1/. Engelsing saw a shift in C18 reading patterns from intensive reading a small number of text to extensive reading of large numbers of text, most of which would only be read once. But Carmody’s not convinced that this is the real revolution, since both types of reading be be identified before and since C18.

Engelsin’s distinction does have application to Christian reading, however. To illustrate the distinction, Carmody contrasts Bible and newspaper reading. Certainly for Christians the Bible ought to be read intensively. It has been the practice of believers since the Bible was written, but it definitely in serious decline today. That is so, despite the plethora of Bible reading programs available (a selection of which can be found on my church’s Web site).

This week I came across another program that will no doubt not suit the modern taste for sixty second quiet times. Grant Horner’s ten-chapter-a-day program (HT: Tim Challies\2/) could even qualify for intensive and extensive at the same time. Ten chapters is certainly intensive, but by reading from ten different books at a time it is much more intensive than other programs. Its consecutive reading of different chapters over a long period appeals to me as a way to see the connections between different parts of Scripture. I am convinced that cross-references alone are insufficient to see the connections, nor is Beale and Carson’s excellent and profitable guide to the NT’s use of the Old.\3/

I’ve noticed how in recent years I can more readily identify connections, allusions and the like in Scripture. I’ve also noticed the blank looks one other people’s faces when I mention them in conversation or study groups. I’m sure that it is only intensive reading over several decades that enable me to see them.

I’ve never followed any formal reading plan for long, but I have decided to give Horner’s a go with one alteration. I’m keeping all of Paul’s letters in list 3, and everything from Hebrews on in list 4. I don’t find the length of time required a problem, I doubt any serious reader would. It remains to be seen whether I can stick to it, since I regularly get “stuck” on verses that leap off the page at me. I think Martyn Lloyd-Jones was onto something when he recommended stopping at them before moving on (in Preaching and Preachers, I think).

Horner’s plan applies intensive and extensive reading to Scripture. I’m sure that each of us ought to have a small number of other books that we read intensively, besides the Bible. Pilgrim’s Progress, Calvin’s Institutes, and C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity regularly appear on suggested lists. Everything else should be in the extensive category. And I don’t think this is a luxury for any Christian, much less so for preachers. John Brand recently quoted John Wesley’s rebuke to a preacher whose reading was far from adequate:

“What has exceedingly hurt you in times past, nay, and I fear to this day, is want of reading. I scarce ever knew a preacher read so little. And perhaps, by neglecting it, you have lost the appetite for it. Hence your talent in preaching does not increase. It is just the same as it was seven years ago.

It is lively but not deep; there is little variety; there is no compass of thought. Reading only can supply this, with meditation and daily prayer. You wrong yourself greatly by omitting this. You can never be a deep preacher without it, any more than a thorough Christian. O begin!”\4/

What a rebuke! But he’s right. It fits with what I recall of James Montgomery Boice’s advice to someone contemplating Christian ministry–study literature before theology.

Extensive reading is not a magic formula for terrific preaching, but it is evidently a means that God regularly blesses. It strikes me that part of the reason why it works is that intensive Bible reading enables us to engage critically with extra-biblical extensive reading. Our extensive reading ought to go beyond biblical and theological topics because such books enable effective critical engagement with the world’s ideas. That can only sharpen our gospel perspective. Without intensive reading of Scripture it may blunt it, or even damage or destroy our faith.

Extensive reading holds little or no danger, so long as we engage in intensive Scripture reading. That’s not closing our minds, but treasuring the most valuable book we possess, and using it to inform our judgment of other books. I’m happy to continue my pattern of combining intensive Scripture reading with extensive extra-biblical reading.

It’s definitely been a profitable week’s reading.

__________

References:

1. Tim Carmody, “10 Reading Revolutions Before E-Books”, The Atlantic, 25 August 2010, http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/10-reading-revolutions-before-e-books/62004/.

2. Tim Challies, “Ten Chapters Per Day”, challies.com, 18 August 2010, http://www.challies.com/christian-living/ten-chapters-per-day.

3. G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007).

4. John Brand, “Preachers Should be Readers”, Encouraging Expository Excellence, 27 July 2010, http://www.encouragingexpositoryexcellence.co.uk/?p=559.

The day of eternity

I’ve just finished reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones on 2 Peter\1/, and most helpful it was. He mentions the paradoxial nature of the phrase “the day of eternity” in 3:18 (p. 256), and although he makes a passing reference to one day being as a thousand years, he doesn’t comment any further about it. I wondered if Peter uses “day” because it will be a period then the sun rises never to set. It is not the time period that is in view, a mere 24 hours, but the character of the day: it is a period of light that will never diminish, since it is the light of the one to whom all the glory is due.

__________
References

1. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Expository Sermons on 2 Peter, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983.

Slow down, you read too fast

Patrick Kingsley wrote an interesting article in The Guardian last Thursday on ‘The art of slow reading‘. In it he mentions Tracy Seeley’s students’ idea of disconnecting from the Internet for a day a week as a way to combat the effect it has on reading.  This is not as unrealistic as some people consider. It just requires discipline, something that even moderate Internet use undermines easily. I think it is certainly well worth the benefit, not that I’ve managed a day a week, but a day every week or so.

I’m convinced that the Internet is contributing in large measure to a shorter attention span. I find Nicholas Carr’s experience to mirror my own somewhat. However, I think that spending time reading serious books and articles offline does help stem the tide. Without it I think my reading skills and attention span would be much less than at present.

Offline reading also stimulates reflection and engagement. Writing comments and criticism is much easier in offline mode. Critical engagement with online reading tends to negligible at best, non-existent at worst. Online reading has a tendency to fragmentation , as hyperlinks are all to easily followed on impulse, and there is a greater temptation to skim the followed links. Footnotes seem to stimulate later follow up reading for me, rather than instantly looking them up and reading right away. Perhaps it is the potential for ephemerality on the Internet that makes me thing that if I don’t read something now it might have disappeared by the time I get round to reading it. It destroys the pleasure of delayed gratification.

__________

References:

Nicholas Carr, ‘Experiments in delinkification‘, Rough Type blog, 31 May 2010, with footnote on 4 June 2010.

Launcelot R. Fletcher, The Free Lance Academy (Home of Slow Reading).

Patrick Kingsley, ‘The art of slow reading‘ in The Guardian, 15 July 2010.

Tracy Seeley’s blog, http://tracyseeley.wordpress.com/ (Where the books are always slow and the comment thread is always open).

More thoughts on reading

John Brand has posted a helpful reminder on the importance of reading, and some strategies for making it more effective. ‘Of making many books…‘ will challenge and encourage. I’m just about to get my reading bag packed for holidays (so this occasional post is not a sign of resurrection on the blog just yet). I reckon it’s my most important piece of packing, though I rarely make it through the pile. I’ll be bearing John’s comments in mind as I get to work on the contents.

His follow up postings, ‘Preachers must be readers‘ and ‘More Quotes on Reading‘, give some encouraging snippets on how important reading is for preachers and serious Bible students.

Who needs chapters and verses?

Chapters & Verses : Who Needs Them? -- at BibleStudyMagazine.comChristopher Smith has a thought-provoking article in Bible Study Magazine (Jug/Aug 2009, Vol. 1, No. 5).

There really are some bizarre chapter divisions, and the online version of the article has an animated review of Colossians that shows the problem well.

There’s also a reference to an IBS project called The Books of the Bible that presents each book without any chapters and verses. There are some free PDF downloads so you can sample the experience. There is also a helpful article by Gordon Fee entitled Why Christians Read Their Bibles Poorly that gives some pointers on how to read Scripture well.

Created or curated sermons?

David Murray has some helpful thoughts on sermon preparation in his article Creator or curator? today. I find myself in the creator camp, but I know the appeal of curation, it’s a time thing. Somehow I just can’t bring myself to abandon creation. I know the difference it makes to my understanding of Scripture, so I’m sure the hearers do too. The amount of time that it requires is definitely a worthwhile investment.

Ironically, this is a curation posting!

Why I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ

I believe it because God’s Word proclaims it, and Christ’s apostles preached it.

But some say dead me don’t live again. I say such a statement is dead wrong. Let me explain.

If resurrection is impossible, then Jesus Christ cannot have risen. But that is not what objectors say. They say, “Resurrection is impossible, so Jesus cannot have risen.” The “if” makes all the different. The statement is a possibility, not a fact.

But there is one other possibility to consider before anyone can come to a firm conclusion. “If Jesus rose from the dead, then resurrection is possible.”

There are not other possibilities. And only one of these possibilities can be true. But which is it?

The objection that resurrection is impossible can never be proven. It rests on a universal negative. No one can be that certain about any statement like that without omniscience. Only a fool or an arrogant person would try. Such a statement can only command acceptance on the balance of probability. But one exception disproves it forever. That one exception has already happened. Jesus has risen. He is the one who falsifies the proposition because his resurrection falsifies the premise.

So I say resurrection is possible because Jesus did rise from the dead. The fact is indisputable. The witness statements are to be found in the pages of the New Testament. They are credible. Only the ignorant would deny that Jesus rose from the dead. Reading the accounts and assessing their veracity at first hand is the only sensible and reasonable way to come to a confident conclusion.

But I believe in the bodily resurrection because God’s Word declares it. The logic merely shows that it is a sensible belief, not a non-sensical one. To believe otherwise is nonsensical, credulous and foolish.

Christ is Risen.

He is risen indeed!