CWoznicki Think Out Loud

Organizing My Sermon Thoughts (Pt. 3)

Hey fellow preachers and teachers. For a third time I thought it would be cool to let you in on how I organize my thoughts in preparing a sermon. I usually pray, approach the text, pray more, read again, pray, outline main ideas, form a rough outline, pray, then write out the sermon verbatim.

I want to share with you the middle stage of this process. There has been some progression in how exactly it looks, but the idea is basically the same. Here is the “main idea” stage for one of my first sermons. Notice the differences; yet again it gets longer and this time there is color!
____________________________________

Commission: Main Idea

Sermon Title: Fulfilling our Mission

Main Idea: As a Church we have a mission. What is that mission? Jesus tells us: “as the father sends me I send you.” (John 17:18) understand our mission we need to look at the life of Jesus and answer two questions. How was Jesus sent and Why was Jesus sent? Once we answer these questions we discover our purpose as a Church. That purpose is to glorify God and to bring others into relationship with him. However doing this as individuals is hard and not very fruitful. Therefore our community is our greatest witness and apologetic.

General Summary: As a Church we have a mission. What is that mission? Jesus tells us: “as the father sends me I send you.” (John 17:18) We are supposed to be like Jesus. As Christians this is why we live, to become more and more like the son. But this still this is vaugue. And sounds more like discipleship than mission. Well Jesus says that we are sent like him, so to understand our sentness or our “missionness” we need to look at the life of Jesus and answer two questions. How was Jesus sent and Why was Jesus sent? How was Jesus sent answers the question of the stuff that he did on earth: taught spent time w/ people, spent time with god, preached the kingdom, lived for 30 years as a normal guy before his ministry. The fact that Jesus did these things means that this is the way that we are to be sent. These things should characterize our lives as sent people. But the real question is why was Jesus sent? The answer is that Jesus was sent to redeem us and create a community that glorifies him. If we look back at genesis we see that we were created to glorify God. Or as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: “Q. 1. What is the chief end of man? A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” So ultimately Jesus died for us so that we could do what we were meant to do right from the beginning: glorify God. So ultimately this is our mission: to glorify god and to bring others into a relationship that glorifies God. And now I could tell you how you can go out and do this through evangelism, but I won’t. I could tell you to go out and share the gospel with your coworkers but I won’t. I want to tell you to do something else. I want you to do evangelism in the context of community. There are several ways that we do evangelism on our own that usually end up with us getting very frustrated: 1-“springer evangelism” and “lone ranger evangelism.” Do you know why we get so frustrated that way? Because that isn’t the way we were meant to evangelize. John 17:23 tells us so. Our community is our greatest witness and apologetic. Once we get this down I guarantee we will begin to see people come to Christ. We need to make it natural for people to hang out with us and to see Christ’s work in us as a community. Once they see that , they will hunger for it! Try it out w/the Halloween party, etc.

Organizing My Sermon Thoughts (Pt. 2)

Hey fellow preachers and teachers. Once again I thought it would be cool to let you in on how I organize my thoughts in preparing a sermon. I usually pray, approach the text, pray more, read again, pray, outline main ideas, form a rough outline, pray, then write out the sermon verbatim.

I want to share with you the middle stage of this process. There has been some progression in how exactly it looks, but the idea is basically the same. Here is the “main idea” stage for one of my first sermons. Notice the difference from the last one…. it gets longer.
____________________________________

The Demands of the Kingdom: Main Idea

Sermon Title: The Demands of the Kingdom

Main Idea: The Kingdom of God makes one demand of you, a decision. In the Kingdom of God there is room for only one sovereign. Those things that take the place of our God in his sovereignty are our idols. God clears the way from our idols so that we can serve and expand his Kingdom.

General Summary: Life is full of decisions, some better than others. The Kingdom of God involves decisions too, in fact the only demand that the Kingdom of God makes on us, is to make a decision. There is a big misconception that the KOG makes many demands on us: i.e. perfection for God’s love and acceptance, but that isn’t true. Luke 9:57-62 show’s that Jesus demands a decision to wholeheartedly follow him. However there are things in our life that get in the way of following him. Sometimes these things are not bad in and of themselves, other times they are. Whatever these things are, those things that take the place of number one importance before God are our idols. Jesus died to forgive us of our idolatry. He dies to forgive us so that we can experience relationship with him. He frees us from our idols so that we can serve him and expand his kingdom.

Organizing My Sermon Thoughts (Pt. 1)

Hey fellow preachers and teachers. I thought it would be cool to let you in on how I organize my thoughts in preparing a sermon. I usually pray, approach the text, pray more, read again, pray, outline main ideas, form a rough outline, pray, then write out the sermon verbatim.

The Cross: The Victory of Christ

Colossians 2:11-5

Main Idea: On the cross Christ defeated and was victorious over the powers and systems which oppress mankind and people from living the live God intended them to live. But more importantly on the cross Christ was victorious over the most oppressive, destructive, and vicious system; the root of all destruction and evil: Sin.

Verse 15: On the cross Christ defeated and was victorious over the oppressive, unjust, and destructive earthly powers, systems, and authorities of his time and for all time.

Closing Idea: The cross is Christ’s saving victory, Paul reminds the Colossians to live in light of this. But Christ’s saving grace doesn’t just apply to the Colossians, but applies to us as well, so lets live in light of what Christ did on cross.

Simple Smallgroups (pt. 5): Pattern 1 – Steps for Connecting Your Own Group

I know its been a LONG time since I posted for this series (two full quarters to be exact)…. but school is almost on break again so here we go!

____________________________________________________

Pattern 1: Connecting (Steps for Your Group)

Hey friends, I know it’s been a while since I last posted something to this series. I won’t make any excuses but….(insert excuse for laziness here). So last time I talked about getting chased by homeless people and about Lifegroups and stuff. Do you remember what we talked about? Yeah we talked about the phases of “connecting.” If you recall there are three phases: 1-Meet, 2-Commit, 3-Belong. In the Meet phase people treat the meeting, well, like a meeting (duh). Its pretty superficial. The Commit phase gets a bit deeper though. In this phase the members of your group will begin to show interest in each others lives and they might begin to connect inside and out of group. Finally there was the Belong phase, when they begin to move from being friends to being family then you know you have reached the belong phase. So where is your group at? Are you in the Meet phase, Commit phase, or the Belong phase? As you try to figure that out let me give you some helpful tips for moving forward along the connecting continuum.

Phase 1 – Meet

Conduct a Good Meeting: This sounds obvious right? But here is what I mean, there are things that we seek to accomplish in our meetings. We seek to encounter Christ, to connect with one another in community, and to be on mission together. Incorporate these elements into your group (as the Spirit leads) and you will have a “good” meeting. But there other elements of having a good meeting: its comfortable and people feel safe to share. If you have a nice comfortable room with nice comfortable seats people will be more likely to come back than if the room is 100 degrees and you are sitting on a wet carpet (that sounds like the intern house….). Also if people in the group feel like its safe to share their thoughts then discussion will be more lively, and engaging. Lively conversation will help people connect at this level.
Give People Responsibilities: This is such a good tip (and not because I am giving it) but the truth is that when people contribute to the group, they develop a sense of ownership. Ask someone to write down the prayers. Ask someone else to bring snacks. Ask someone to open up/close the prayers. As they get more and more involved they will begin to feel as the group really is theirs! If they feel like the group is theirs they will be more likely to commit to the group and less likely to bail.
Pray for Eachother: Most people will open up during prayer time way more than they would during any other time during the Lifegroup. As the group begins you need to know that some of the prayers will be superficial, but as they get used to sharing their prayers with one another they will begin to get deeper and as a result each person will be exposing their heart a little bit more. On another note, follow up on the requests. Call them, text them, facebook them (in a private message). This displays that you really do care about their prayer requests.

Phase 2 – Commit

Hang Out: Here is an axiom of Lifegroups – Building quality relationships takes time. Why not spend that time doing something fun. Have a BBQ. Go to the movies. Play some Settlers of Catan. Maybe go get some Diddy Riese then evangelize Westwood! Whatever you do know that hanging out together outside of Lifegroup gives you more opportunities to build stronger relationships. Think of it like a romantic relationship, if the couple never hangs out the relationship isn’t going anywhere. It’s the same with Lifegroups, if you don’t hang out the relationships are going nowhere.
Break off into Smaller Groups: One of the things that my group does during prayer times is break off into smaller groups. This can really help build stronger relationships because you get a chance to get more intimate with a few people. Think about it…. If you don’t break off during prayer time you could share a prayer to the whole group and someone could say a general prayer for you at the end of prayer time after everyone has shared OR you could share with 1 or 2 people and they can pray for you personally on the spot. Which one of these scenarios do you think will help build a deeper relationship? Not to mention that if you break of into smaller groups you will have more time to share than if you waited for everyone in the whole Lifegroup to share.

Phase 3 – Belong

Serve Together: A while ago at our 6 hour long Lifegroup Training I talked about Alan Hirsch’s concept of Communitas. Communitas is the type of community that is built around a common goal or mission. Its deeper than community…. Its Communitas! A great example of communitas is the movie Saving Private Ryan; the soldiers were not a community until they centered themselves around the mission of saving private Ryan. Besides the movie can you think of another example of communitas? I can think of one: short-term mission trips. After serving together with someone for a week (or a weekend) don’t you feel like you have know that person forever? Like a really deep bond has been formed? I know that I have experienced that before. That is communitas. In my personal opinion articulating a common mission and goal for your Lifegroup will be the best thing you can do to strengthen the level of connecting. So what are some things that you could center your Lifegroup around? What goals or mission could your Lifegroup adopt? I would recommend praying and asking God what he wants for your specific Lifegroup since all Lifegroups will be different.
Prophetic Prayer: Yes prophetic prayer. Catch this, I don’t mean tell eachother the future (that is just plain wrong). I mean listen to the Spirit then speak God’s truth into one another. This will certainly draw the members of the group together. A few weeks ago I spoke about this in regard to Colossians 3:12-17. I said that out of our identity as chosen, holy, and dearly loved we are to encourage one another with the Word of Christ. Incorporate this into your group and watch how God will begin to grow your heart for the other people in your group. Constantly be reminding one another of your identity in Christ. Constantly pray those truths over one another and what will happen is that the person that is getting prayed for will grow and the person doing the prayer will also be reminded of her position in Christ.

Concluding Thoughts

Hopefully these tips helped! After all it’s my heart that God would grow our sense of community in Lifegroups. I am confident that as we grow deeper in community we will better display God’s love and God’s heart for his people, and nothing is more attractive that God’s own heart! Hopefully as you grow closer together, non-Christians will be able to see what true community looks like and they will begin to long for that. As they see that invite them into the community, don’t force them to change before they are welcomed! Welcome them in, speak truth in love, and watch God work on their hearts. I am confident that if we do that we will see so many people come to Jesus through our Lifegroups as Soma!

College Services, Penal Substitution, and Lex Orandi Lex Credendi

So the following are some of my thoughts on Penal Substitution, Worship, and the formation of theology in light of our worship practices. Its a bit “stream of consciousness” so forgive me if there are some gaps in my logic and or some parts don’t make sense…

___________________________________

So Thursday I went to visit a college group in San Dimas, CA with my girlfriend Amelia and Jacqueline Elliot (a student in the college ministry that I lead) because Jacqueline (who goes to APU) is thinking about going to that church once school starts up again. So we were worshiping and at the end of the service one of the songs we sang was John Mark McMillan’s “How He Loves Us.”

Here are some of the Lyrics:

And we are his portion and He is our prize // Drawn to Redemption by the grace in his eyes // If Grace is an ocean, we’re all sinking // And Heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss // And my heart turns violently inside of my chest // I don’t have time to maintain these regrets // When I think about the way // Oh, how he loves us, oh // oh how he loves us, how he loves us all // How He loves us

As I was singing that I was flooded with emotion and a sense of love for Jesus. I felt overwhelmed by his grace. I was so greatful that he loved me that he redeemed me that he draws me with his grace that he covers my sins so I don’t have to maintain my regrets. And then my mind turned to what I was singing and feeling. I realized that I was meditating upon the atonement. And that I was meditating upon a penal subsitution view of the atonement and that meditating on that overwhelmed me with feelings of grace and of being loved. I was mediating on the fact that the God of the universe loved me so much that he gave his son to die on my behalf. And then I began to think about all the debates regarding penal-substitutionary atonement and the claim about how this view makes the Father look like he is a child-abuser or he is angry and vindictive. But the truth is that as I was singing all I felt was God’s overwhelming love and grace for me.

I think that there really is something to this experience of feeling these things in light of this doctrine. After all “lex orandi lex credendi” (the law of prayer is the law of belief). In other words our liturgical practices (namely prayer and worship) are the measure for shaping our move from Scripture to dogmatics. When considering modern atonement theories we must consider not only in light of scripture but also lex orandi, in light of the church’s prayer and worship life. (Side Note: I understand and fully believe that we must begin with scripture as our foundation for all our theology, however we must also be upfront with the fact that our interpretation of scripture is shaped by our worship practices, our traditions, and our life experiences.) The reason I bring up lex orandi lex credendi is that in my own reading of other atonement theories (I have only read a few), God’s love for his people is not emphasized. I have a hard time imagening what a moral exemplar worship song will be about. Anyway I think that it would be an interesting project to evaluate the worship that is produced by the other atonement theories. Do they make God more beautiful in our eyes? Do they paint a picture of God as sovereign and loving? If not then they fail the worship “test.” In other words we should ask if these theories make us want to worship Jesus more. If they don’t then there is something off in them.

Church and Culture, Eschatology, and the Biblical Meta-Narrative

Question: How should the church engage culture? Should it seek to transform it?

Answer: One of the major conflicts in evangelicalism revolves around the notion of how much the Church should engage culture. Although there is conflict, there are certain things that most traditions agree upon. For instance, there is agreement that the Church should not conform to the idolatrous ways of the world. Yet what exactly those idolatrous ways consist of will vary from tradition to tradition. Also, most traditions will agree that God will restore and redeem creation at the eschaton. Disagreements will arise as to when God begins to restore and redeem creation.

Some of these disagreements arise due to some misunderstandings over eachother’s beliefs. For instance in Resident Aliens: A Provocative Christian Assessment of Culture and Ministry for People Who Know that Something is Wrong Hauerwas and Willimon discuss the differences between Niebuhr’s typology and Yoder’s typology. Hauerwas and Willimon end up advocating for Yoder’s position of the confessing church, the visible church is an alternative polis, being something that the world is not and can never be (46). Its influence lies in it being church rather than actively trying to influence the world. This position is incompatible with Niebuhr’s position, exemplified by F.D. Maurice, this is a view in which the Church can effectively make the world a “better place.” I think that the disagreement between these two positions lies in the lack of allowing the meta-narrative of scripture to influence our views of church and culture.

If we take seriously the meta-narrative, as Carson does in Christ and Culture Revisted (Chapter 2), we arrive at a position which sees that the arrogant position that people of the Church itself can change the world (the position advocated by Niebuhr and opposed by Anabaptists), is wrong and misguided. Under the view influenced by the meta-narrative of Scripture (creation, fall, Israel, Jesus, Church, Restoration) we know that the church is still called to love the world because God loves the world, this love for the world will necessarily influence the world and seek to help the people of the world. For instance, the people of the church will help to alleviate the problem of the lack of clean water in Uganda, not because the Church believes that it can solve the problem (the meta-narrative says that certain issues like this cannot be solved before the eschaton) but because the church loves the people of the world. So the church can seek transformation, yet it must realize that complete transformation cannot be attained this side of the eschaton.

Interpreting the History of American Evangelicalism: 2 Lenses (Part 3: Doctrinal Disputes)

In this brief series of posts I would like to examine the history of American Christianity through two lenses: 1-the lens of democratization and 2-the lens of doctrinal disputes. Last time we looked at Evangelicalism through the lens of “democratization,” in today’s post (which is the third post in this series) we will take a look at what I consider a better lens for examining American Evangelicalism.
_____________________________________

Although examining evangelicalism through the lens of populist towards established can be useful, I believe that a better interpretive lens for examining the movement is through the lens of doctrinal disputes that lead to division. These divisions are a prominent theme in evangelicalism. For instance George Marsden examines the rise of fundamentalism through this lens. He sees that Christians divide over Christianity’s relationship to modernism and its relationship to orthodoxy, thus protestant Christianity divides into liberals and fundamentalists. The fundamentalists further divide themselves into those that believe Christians should separate from liberal denominations and those that believe that they should work together. This was the case with J. Gresham Machen. Marsden examines Machen’s motivations in founding Westminster seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in light of this interpretive lens. Machen separates from his former denomination and seminary because of doctrinal issues.

Another case of division over doctrine occurs at Fuller Seminary. The seminary was essentially split up over the doctrine of inerrancy. This was one key storyline in Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism. The reason that inerrancy became such an issue at Fuller was that initially Fuller’s founders tried to startle the line between being fundamentalist and being progressive. This tension finally broke over the issue of inerrancy and climaxed on “Black Saturday.” Eventually certain members of faculty left the school and went on to found or work for other organizations like Christianity Today and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Finally, during the early history of evangelicalism we see more divisions over doctrine. One key division occurred over to the doctrinal stances towards revivals during the Great Awakening. Old lights like Charles Chauncy opposed revivalism and New Lights like Jonathan Edwards embraced revivalism. This division into New Light and Old Light factions has marked evangelicalism ever since. Recently we have seen this division play out in evangelical groups like Vineyard and Calvary that emphasized signs and wonders and the groups that opposed these practices.

I believe that it is possible to see evangelicalism as a series of schisms over doctrine and practice that lead to new branches within the movement; thus examining evangelicalism through this lens might be a fruitful project. However we should be careful of trying to interpret evangelicalism through only one lens. If we are going to get a complete picture of evangelicalism we need various lenses. In The Rise of Evangelicalism Mark Noll presents an excellent example of interpreting evangelicalism through a variety of lenses. He examines early evangelicalism through various lenses including the lens of geography, politics, doctrine, and spirituality. Perhaps if we are going to get a well-rounded picture of evangelicalism and the forces behind it we need to use multiple lenses.

Interpreting the History of American Evangelicalism: 2 Lenses (Part 2: Revolutionary Religion and Creationism)

In this brief series of posts I would like to examine the history of American Christianity through two lenses: 1-the lens of democratization and 2-the lens of doctrinal disputes. In today’s post, which is the second post in this series we will take a look at two movements in American Evangelicalism which can be interpreted in light of the pattern of “democratization.”

(Note: I am not using the term fundamentalist in a derogatory way. The term fundamentalist is a technical term referring to those who were opposed to liberalism and signed on to the “Fundamentals of the Faith.” Nor do I advocate for a particular understanding of the Genesis narrative.)
_____________________________________

The first movement occurs during the initial rise of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism prior to the Revolutionary war displayed many of the populist patterns described by Hatch. Early evangelicalism had plenty of charismatic populist leaders, including the Wesley brothers, George Whitefield, and William Seward. Also, the church hierarchies in the colonies were quite weak, ordinary lay people began to distrust and criticize their pastors and even organized movements to have some of them removed from their positions. Thus the traditional hierarchy of clergy over the laity began to slowly dissolve. Finally there was also an emphasis on the personal religious experience of conversion, or being born again. Often these experiences occurred outside of the established church, in revival meetings or in home groups similar to that of the Methodists. However, even for early evangelicalism we see a trajectory towards becoming more middle class and staid. Certain groups became the establishment: Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. But more importantly there were groups that moved from being against the establishment towards working alongside the establishment: Methodists and Baptists. These two groups were greatly influenced by Whitefield’s methods of doing ministry, however they eventually became middle class. As religion prior to the Revolution became more middle class, the shape of evangelicalism began to change. Churchgoers began to value education from elite institutions such as Harvard and Yale. Christians began to form well-organized voluntary societies with leaders who were well respected by the society. Finally they began to stress the notion that it was one’s duty as a Christian to move up in society, both as an individual in the marketplace and as a religious institution among a multitude of churches. Evangelicals had accepted the principles of business that were revolutionizing the burgeoning industrial world.

The major difference between pre-revolutionary war evangelicalism’s movement towards the middle class and pre-civil war evangelicalism’s movement towards the middle class is that the key leaders within early evangelicalism were not trying to be upwardly mobile, while key leaders within later evangelicalism like Charles Finney and Nathan Bang were very conscious of their move towards respectability.

Another movement in which we see a shift from being populist towards becoming more middle class and staid is within the fundamentalist creationism movement. There are various reasons why fundamentalists disagreed with evolutionary theory, however there are two which are especially relevant to understanding how it was a populist movement. The first is that for most fundamentalists, it was impossible to reconcile evolution with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Fundamentalists had a democratic hermeneutic, they believed that the Bible was best interpreted by the naïve readings that common people would give it. Another reason why fundamentalists distrusted evolution is that it strained common sense. Among fundamentalists, Scottish commonsense realism was one of the most influential philosophies. Thus that which makes most sense to the common man was most likely to be true. For fundamentalists it did not make sense to say that the complex universe in which we live in arose spontaneously with out God’s help.

The fundamentalist creationism movement had populist tendencies, especially when it came to its epistemology, but also when it came to organizing movements against those who advocated for evolution. As creationists and evolutionists clashed in the public square, in cases like the Scopes Trial, it became clear that fundamentalists were losing their position in society. Thus they interpreted these battles as an assault upon Christianity. They tried to win this battle, but eventually they failed. As a result fundamentalists were exiled from academia. But fundamentalists would not accept this as a complete loss. If they would lose their position and prominence in mainstream culture, they would form a new one. They would form new schools and have different ways of doing science. Thus fundamentalist began to open numerous bible colleges. Also, creationists would advocate for different ways of doing science, ways that were founded upon Baconian principles and Scottish commonsense realism.

The case of the fundamentalist battle over creation is another instance in which a populist movement shifts towards becoming the establishment. However this case is a bit different from the others. Fundamentalists wanted to become the establishment, however they were eventually pushed out from prominence and were even pushed out from mainstream culture. Thus it was impossible for them to become the middle class establishment. However that desire to for prominence and respect played out in different ways. They would create their own culture with their own educational institutions and scientific principles. In essence they took what mainstream culture saw as respectable and imitated it. To sum things up we might say that those in the fundamentalist creation science movement desired to become the establishment but couldn’t so they settled for imitating the establishment.

Interpreting the History of American Evangelicalism: 2 Lenses (Part 1)

It has been said that one of the themes in the history of evangelicalism is that energetic populist or democratic new movements eventually become more middle class and staid. One might seek to interpret the history of American Christianity in light of this lens (the democratization of American Christianity). However there are other primary lenses for interpreting American Christianity for instance one might interpret American Christianity in light of theological principles (such as how God works), doctrines, intellectual or interpretive assumptions that shape use of the Bible, practices, moral standards and concerns, leadership, personalities of leaders, zeal and organization for evangelism and missions, responses to the challenges of the surrounding culture, effective use of media, or other factors.

_____________________________________

In his book The Democratization of American Christianity, Nathan Hatch argues that the central force behind evangelicalism has been its democratic or populist orientation. This populist orientation is manifested in three different ways. The first way he sees the populist spirit played out is in the fact that evangelicals consider individual religious experiences of utmost importance. The second way is in lack of a firm distinction between clergy and laity. During the rise of evangelicalism ordinary people began to distrust their established leaders and sought out to shape their own faith according to their own likings and to choose their own leaders. The third way is the way that evangelicalism has always been led by populist, charismatic leaders with big dreams to change the world, for instance Francis Asbury and Charles Finney.

Although Evangelicalism prior to the civil war was a populist religion, eventually it shifted towards becoming more middle class, to the point where it eventually became the established form of religion among the American people. Hatch points out that in the South Baptists and Methodists became the established forms of religion. As they became more established, middle and upper-class citizens sought to join these churches, in turn these churches sought to dampen populist tendencies so that they might find respectability among its new members and society at large. The way this played out was in the adoption of middle-class methods of ministry and in the establishment of institutions of higher education.

One character that sticks out in this shift from populist to established is Charles Finney. Finney bridged both cultures, and introduced the indigenous methods of popular evangelism to the middle class. But he also brought middle class interests to populist religion; he brought along with him middle class ways of preaching and an interest in orthodox theology that up to this point had not been a major interest for many evangelicals.

This pattern of being populist and democratic to becoming more middle class and staid is a pattern that can be seen through the history of evangelicalism. In the next post I would like to briefly look at two movements within evangelicalism that display this pattern.