Plank In The Eye And The Construction of a Sermon
Wood Splinters In The Eye Are Never A Good Thing!
Creating a sermon isn't easy sometimes. Often, many have gone over the same messages and meanings so many times that one in the pew could recite the words verbatim. One can predict where the sermon is going only after a few minutes. That sermon will use true, but overused points, sprinkled with catch-phrases and blanket statements designed to back up those claims made earlier. Some who are intellectually stimulated will feel more bored because the content isn't fresh. It's going over the same points over and over again.
As
a result, it's the role of the one presenting the sermon to see how
to apply God's word. Because the Bible can be interpreted in so many
ways, it's possible to shed fresh light and add a different
perspective to God's word. It's the role of the presenter to cause
those metaphorical light-bulb in the congregation to go off.
Sometimes,
I feel that there is a golden opportunity to examine God's word from
this different perspective or take. That's why I'm going to do
something somewhat different. A sermon about the creation of a sermon
and how I got to the points given. How can I compose this sermon?
Give the congregation that different perspective?
The one presenting the sermon has to be very transparent. I feel that the presenter has to provide reasons of why the sermon is the way that it is. For example, why don't I incorporate catch-phrases into sermons? I have a strong disdain for catch-phrases, as they tend to be very obnoxious. This is the equivalent of bumper sticker content. Catch sayings do not add anything productive to the sermon. They are there to invoke a crowd response, not to stimulate deep thought. Also, these catch sayings tend to trivialize Christianity down inaccurately. Ears bleed in the congregation when they are uttered.
Now, lets get to the “meat” of the sermon. What will be discussed. This is always the hardest part. So many topics have been covered that there really isn't much room to navigate through the expected motions. This is where one has to discover what is the purpose of the sermon is. The role of the sermon is to relay God's teachings to the congregation. Basically, taking God's word and interpreting it for the modern situation. The sermon is also where topics afflicting the church are addressed. Sermons are where these topics covering the potential moral and ethical issues of those in the congregation are examined. It's even the place to examine if we ourselves are a component of these shortcomings.
As
this sermon is being constructed, that last sentence raises a point.
Many have gotten into the mindset that just by
throwing God and Jesus around makes there messages perfect and immune
from criticism. in there sermons make the sermon perfect. If there is
a problem, than that problem is yours. It's around here that secularism
are used as scapegoats to ignore
whatever moral and ethical shortcomings are in the church. This is
where sometimes one runs into those memes on Facebook stating that if
there is a problem with what the preacher says, then that's your
problem. This insinuates that all preachers are beyond human,
incapable of making mistakes, and always right. Your failure to
understand them is your problem. It's a one-way street essentially.
Some have a very massive plank in there eye. This is the same plank
that Jesus described in Matthew Chapter 7 verse 5. This is the verse
that condemns self-righteousness. People are quick to spot the faults
and issues with others, but not themselves. Things have to be done in
order to avoid these planks of wood from getting into the eye. Wearing
metaphorical eye-gear helps. We will look at these planks and how to
avoid them and falling into the trap of the self-righteous.
As
this sermon analysis itself, I realize that my interpretation of
Biblical scripture is just exactly that, interpretation. It's still
not validated fact. It can be embraced or rejected. However, since I
realize that I'm still a person capable of mistakes, with the
exception of the core beliefs of Christianity, everything else that
falls into interpretation is open to debate. I don't state that what
I see is correct, but how I perceive things with the word of God.
Someone else looking into his word can come to a totally different
assumption. This is why we look into God's word. Many will come to
different interpretations. It's a opportunity to look at these
different ideas, not go around presenting those interpretations as
validated facts.
As
mentioned earlier, mistakes can be made when one falls into the
trappings of religion. Spirituality is the gift of God. It's when he
speaks to us through the Holy Spirit. Jesus guides our spirituality
through prayer. It's where we seek that relationship. Religion, which
is the standardization and formalization of spirituality, is a
creation of man. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Religion helps
in the understanding of God's word, and it helps those who are on
there spiritual journey trying to understand his teachings in a more
formal setting. However, religion is a creation of man. It's prone to
the moral and ethical shortcomings of man.
This is where those presenting the sermon have a major responsibility to be as as close to the teachings of Jesus as possible. This is a major responsibility to live up to. What was Jesus trying to accomplish in his spiritual pursuit? In a nutshell, this is Salvation. Of course, I can make the assumption that everyone hearing or reading this already knew that. At the same time, I can also make the safe assumption that one didn't just want nutshells either. (Unless there hungry of course!)
Sermons work
there best when they stick to core concepts. With that said, social and
political commentary can be incorporated into a sermon. In fact, it's
incorporated into this sermon. However, even I realize that there is a
massive responsibility that has to be exercised when doing this, along
with extreme caution. The material used has to relate to what you're
preaching and highlights a direct representation of the word. This also
means that the reference used has to be well-researched. One can't grab
the first sensationalist piece that they see on there Facebook feed and
then incorporate that story in the sermon on impulse. You can't go there
and assume that everything you read there is true or is in your best
interest.
There is a massive danger that the person
incorporating these articles could be inadvertently lying by doing this.
This will put those massive planks in people's eyes as well. Many of
those visiting these random sites will automatically believe that if the
website have words like “Christian”, “America”, or Patriotic” in them,
that these sites won't lie to them. You can take there word for it. Many
of those operating these junk sites know this as well. As a result,
they will purposely create sensationalist content appealing to the
anger, fears, and anxieties of those who are reading this content,
taking actual information out of context to make there case. Virtually
all of these sites have political slants and incorporate conspiracy
theory elements as well. How do we know that political indoctrination
isn't passed off as Biblical teaching? As a result of this, in my
opinion, spiritual exploitation of people's fears and anxieties, many
will see things that aren't there. Paranoia and fear reign supreme. In
this case, the person can't see because there are massive planks in
there eyes. If this is the case, then can the blind lead the blind? This
fear is not Biblically based. It's not grounded on reality either for
that matter, but yet, embraced by the gospel by many. Aspects that get
incorporated into the sermon as Biblical teaching.
Now, I'm not saying that any site that has the word “Christian” in it is out to manipulate you to conform in a certain political direction. However, critical thinking needs to be exercised on the part of those embarking on the spiritual walk. This applies to whatever program you watch on TBN as well. Yes, one can come to the conclusion that the vast majority of the material is there to enrich your spiritual walk. However, you can't just make the assumption that because this network is Christian related, that everything on it is good and wholesome and you can just take there word for it. This is were I would tell those to exercise your critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is a necessity to avoid these planks.
This is why so
much emphasis needs to be spent understanding God's word. Note that I
didn't say read God's word, I said understand it. Anyone can read God's
word. Anyone can quote scripture when it's convenient for them. This
guide is essential to avoid those planks of wood causing eye splinters.
God's word falls flat when taken at face-value. Place that word in your
heart and make it living. To do this, we have to look deeper into the
Bible. What was the message that those writing the gospel trying to
project? What were the circumstances that resulted in the work being
written, ie, the historical context? What does this mean for modern
audiences reading these scripture. How does this relate to them? How
does it relate to me?
Now these questions are rhetorical. I am
not seeking a spoken answer, especially when I can make the safe
assumption that half of the congregation is in a zombie-like state. I
will never punish you by asking random questions and then wanting those
answers knowing your still trying to get to that caffeinated high.
So
what is the ministry of Jesus about? What was Jesus doing and why? At
this point, it's not enough just to say that Jesus loves you and died
for your sins, especially when you've been raised believing that. I'm
not going to ask familiar faces to raise there hands if you believe that
Jesus died for your sins. I already know what the text-book response is
going to be. One has to examine Jesus deeper.
Why did Jesus
embark on his endeavor? He did it because he loves us. He also did this
because he's God's Son and wanted us to have Salvation through him. Then
one will respond with the counter question: why was this sacrifice
necessary? It's a common trope in Christian movies for this question to
be asked by a atheist. However, I can easily see this question coming
from someone who believes in Jesus, but wanting to stimulate
conversation to see what the response is. Is he doing this because
there's a plank in his eye, or is there one in my eye that needs to be
removed. Either way, challenge accepted.
First, God wanted
that relationship with us. Sin is in the way. He could have turned us
into controlled zombies that just worshiped him. However, he wanted
people to do this through there free will. In order for these people to
have that relationship, a sacrifice was necessary. A sacrifice to remove
the sin. A sacrifice that could be paid in blood. God couldn't get a
angel to embark on the sacrifice because angels couldn't relate to the
pain and suffering of man. Angels are supernatural beings that never
experienced the pain and suffering that man has gone through. This could
be seen as a huge blessing for them. That also means though that they
never had the experiences that man could relate too.
To go on
with the great plan. God sent his son Jesus as a man to become part of
this sacrifice. This allowed him to experiences there joy and there pain
at the same time. This allowed him to see how people got tempted by
Satan, and by there personal demons as well. He experienced ethical and
moral shortcomings as well. He got to feel there disappointment. Jesus
was a witness to the exploitation that the traders were doing on Holy
Ground, and he challenged them. He seen social injustices that have been
committed because the person was not part of a religious or ethical
group that conformed to what the Pharisees preferred. Jesus was not out
to punish those who were sinful, but to provide Salvation and Hope. A
random preacher could have just stopped there and tell the congregation
to go home. The one in the pew would be thinking that, “yes” I heard
that, but I want more”.
Jesus showed God's love through his ministry. He was showing that he could demonstrate God's love through acts that reached out to humanity. But what he was also demonstrating was that others could do this as well. He reached out to the poor and those marginalized by society. This helps build that relationship.
How does this
relate to the modern context? Part of the reason of why we study God's
word is so that we can put it in the modern context. There are still
those out there marginalized by society, seeking hope and meeting there
spiritual, and sometime physical needs in the form of food, water, and
shelter. Some might be going through extreme hardships. Some might have a
disease that they are either suffering or dying from.
Some
are going through issues that bring great pain because it invokes strong
responses of fear of being judged by society, and those within the
church setting. A woman is grappling with the issue of whether to get an
abortion. She is seeking guidance on the issue. The main things we can
do, and only thing that we can do, is give her the guidance that she
needs to make that decision.
We can't make it for her. She's
is well within her civic right to get one. Spiritual leaders would be
overstepping there authority if they went out to impose there own will
and made that decision for her. The planks in there own eyes would cause
them to become self-righteous and look down on that woman instead of
giving her the spiritual guidance that she needs. Also, spiritual
guidance becomes clouded when one looks at situations where many become
pious and look down at the faults of the sinner, failing to realize that
as human, they are the same boat as well.
The only things
that we can do is guide her spiritually. She is still a recipient of
God's love, regardless of the decision made. Those who are homosexual
are also recipients of God's love. They go through extreme hardship.
Some have been kicked out of there homes because the parents wanted
nothing to do with them. During the ISIS occupation of Syria and
Northern Iraq, many of them had to flee because there own fathers were
counting the seconds to turn them over. Those unlucky to have been
caught were thrown off of tall buildings because these criminals, the
ISIS fighters, embraced a extreme form of Islam demanding death for who
they are. Our backs can't be turned against them. We can't declare that
they're not welcomed in the church. Would Jesus have turned them away? I
would imagine that Jesus would still have them part of his congregation
as well. Everybody needs God's love, regardless of who they are.
As this sermon does it's self examination, I already know what one or two people in the congregation is thinking. Some that have massive planks in there eyes. “This is that “God is love” rubbish, ignorant of sinners” boasted by some. However, as I will point out, they are still sinners. There who commit the sins of homosexuality, alcoholism, murder, abortion, etc, are sinners in God's eyes. But, do you also know who is a sinner in God's eye's? We all are. Those who cheat on there wives are sinners. Those who murder are sinner sin God's eye. Those who steal are sinners. These sins and others are equal in God's eye. You can't demonize homosexuality and abortion while discounting lying, abuse, and alcoholism. You can't restrict someone's civic rights just because they don't conform to the ideas of a specific religious code. We are quick to condemn Radical Islam, but when we restrict civic rights of those in the LGBTQ community for who they are, that doesn't make us any better than those ISIS fighters. Franklin Graham can't demand Pete Buttigieg to repent while ignoring the indiscretion and moral and ethical shortcomings committed by various politicians. Franklin Graham has a very obvious plank in his eye if he's quick to point out the sins of one, but chooses to ignore the sins of others. If you demand one person to repent, then you have to demand all to repent, regardless of affiliation. To single one out but ignoring others, makes that person a hypocrite and makes a mockery of God's word.
Note:Before he passed, Billy Graham declared that one of his biggest regret was his involvement in politics. He felt that his spirituality had been compromised as a result. Franklin Graham didn't embrace his father's warning about how political involvement will pollute a persons moral judgment and compass. Even declaring that it isn't about politics becomes such because the slants are obvious, and the sins of others are ignored.
Now, the church
shouldn't change it's doctrine to cater to sinners. In fact, it's called
not to. Not because it's a betrayal of God's word, but because God
demands the spiritual leaders to reach out to sinners. The church can
embrace there doctrine, but still reach out to those in need of
spiritual help. However, the responsibility to reach out to the
spiritual needs of the sinners in a loving manner are still there. Jesus
reached out, and he did it with a loving hand too. He did this for all
sinners as well, because they are still recipients of God's love. You
can't turn back a sinner because we feel that they are not deserving of
God's love. Jesus wouldn't have not wanted his. In fact, we would
condemn Christians who did this.
This is not to discount sin
in general. God hates sin. But one would have looked into what Jesus
would have done in that situation. No, I'm not going to use the phrase
WWJD, because that phrase trivializes Christianity and have been abused
by many wanting to do there own will and justifying it in Jesus's name.
Some of those that like to preach the gospel of Hell will declare that the teachings of Christian universalism is flawed because they only focus on God's love. Of course those that make the claim base there views on inaccurate stereotypes. Even Christian universalist realize and acknowledge that Hell is a component of the ministry that must be covered and acknowledged.
However, they, along with others, also realize that you can't preach a congregation just based on Hell alone. Also, those that usually make these claim usually only preach the gospel of Hell. This is again in the stark contrast of Jesus where he acknowledge the existence of Hell and warned about it. At the same time, the pursuit of people's spiritual needs by demonstrating God's love took upmost importance.
Jesus hates sin. He and his ministry went
out of there way to give people alternatives to sin. That alternative is
his Salvation. He demonstrated God's love for others by helping those
in need. He also did this to show that others could do this as well.
Nowadays, this means providing help to those who are on the bottom of
the economic ladder, provide those who are being marginalized by there
background based on race and ethnicity. Also, spiritual help and
guidance needs to be provided to those dealing with personal, private
issues like abortion and homosexuality. Those going through the issues
not wanting public exposure and all the ugly baggage that it comes with
it. These are private issues not meant to be a public spectacle.
This
brings up a question: how would Jesus have reacted? Given his mannerism
during his ministry, it would be possible to construct a accurate
picture. He would have acknowledged that we are all sinners, regardless
of our sins or who we are. He would have also wanted us to acknowledge
and repent for our sins, regardless of who we are as well. I also image
that he would have welcomed us into open arms. He would have showed
God's love to anyone willing to embrace it. He asked for forgiveness for
those nailing him to the cross. I would even imagine that he would have
extended his invitation of Salvation to those ISIS fighters will to
repent if they choose. A choice is provided. Oh, I also know that this
part is not relevant at all, but the spell-checker for Buttigieg shows
it as Butterfingers. So image if I went with it, it would be Pete
Butterfingers! A occasional joke helps in these sermons. The sermons
designed to inspire critical thinking, and not entertain in crowd
responses.
Any preacher will make the declaration that they don't care who there sermon offends. I'm in the same camp. I don't care if my sermon offends those that became so complacent in there faith that it turns to self-righteousness, unwilling to see there own moral shortcomings or faults. Those that have planks in there eyes. Many who embrace this mindset are quick to condemn many while ignoring others in the process. Essentially, the ones that are doing the condemning have the massive plank in the eye that Jesus described in the beatitudes. Jesus would have felt the pain of Christians being persecuted for who they are. I though imaged that he would have also felt the pain of homosexuals, woman, Buddhist, Muslims, and Hindu's persecuted for who they are as well. Persecution is a universal issue. Jesus wouldn't have wanted any of it, regardless of the group.
There are many
that have planks in there eyes. Sometimes, I wonder if I have a plank in
my eye. This sermon was written from the perspective as if I was
writing this for myself, and everybody else was in for the ride. Trying
to also self-examine if I have my sights block by annoying pieces of
wood. As a result, it's necessary for this sermon to self reflect and
critique itself in certain parts. It's also important to study God's
word to identify if people are true to his word, and recognize others if
they are spiritually blind as well. Giving people that interpretation
of God's word, but in a way that causes people to self-reflect and dwell
on it at a deeper level.
As noted before, the elements of commentary are my own interpretations of Biblical scripture, and not validated fact, nor should they be presented as such. Not really that different from when other preachers incorporate social and political commentary as well. It's there interpretation, and not validated fact either. God's word becomes tainted when people pass off there interpretations of scripture as facts. This also highlights why God's word has to be examined at a deeper level. The interpretations that one might have will be completely different from another. Some might consider this even fun at times because one can see the different perspectives, and some might even see things from a different side that they might have not questioned before. This sermon wasn't intended on entertaining that crowd response, but inspire deep thought of God's word.
Patheos
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.COM
Does This Photograph Show Nigerian Christians Burned Alive by Muslims?
(Warning: Several of these pictures are graphic in nature. Caution advised)
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.COM
DR Congo fuel truck victims buried in mass graves
BBC
WWW.BBC.COM
Did ‘Muslim Militants’ Kill 120 Christians in Nigeria in February/March 2019?
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.COM
Did Muslim Terrorists Bomb a Church in the Philippines “Yesterday,” Killing 30 Christians?
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.COM
Did a Muslim Student Set Fire to a Christian School to ‘Protest’ Trump?
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.COM
WWW.SNOPES.COM
California Bill Wouldn’t Ban the Bible
WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG
It’s Not About Muslim or Christian. It’s About Extremism
Patheos
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
PATHEOS
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
Wahhabism
WIKIPEDIA
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Did Billy Graham Warn Against Mixing Religion and Politics?
SNOPES
WWW.SNOPES.COM
Billy Graham Walked A Line, And Regretted Crossing Over It, When It Came To Politics
NPR
WWW.NPR.ORG
Franklin Graham Calls for Pete Buttigieg to Repent for Being Gay
THE DAILY BEAST
WWW.THEDAILYBEAST.COM
7 Assumptions About Universalism That Are So Often Wrong
Patheos
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
Comments
Post a Comment