I had an enjoyable conversation with a friend today about note takers in church. Some preachers love it when listeners are taking notes. After all, it means they are listening, learning and will be going over the message again later. But actually it doesn’t. They are half-listening, may be learning, may or may not go over it again later. I’ve read research that suggests the best way for listeners to learn from a message is to listen attentively, and then have time immediately afterwards to make some retrospective notes. That allows them to give full attention to the message, rather than trying to recall and write while you are preaching. It also allows them to immediately distill main point and applications of the message, rather than fooling themselves into thinking an outline equates to learning or life change. Attention given to one thing means less attention given to something else. If people are writing, then their minds are distracted from what is being said at that moment
See the original post:
Preaching and Note Takers
I recently attended John Piper’s Desiring God gathering in Minneapolis, and yes, the Reformed crowd there was pretty alive and well, and the crowd seemed particularly young for a conference.
More here:
The Economist discovers Calvinists
Before we discuss a new story about problems at President Obama’s faith-based office, a bit of context. While funding of religious non-profits did not begin with President Bush, he really took that ball and ran with it. he created the first White House office of Faith-based Initiatives.
Original post:
Obama’s faith-based office criticized
In my last post , I went over the idea that “[After baptism] all our sins past are forgiving us, we are now covered by grace so that when we do sin we are forgiven.” It became quite clear that within Armstrongism, grace and forgiveness are earned through a partial keeping of the Old Covenant law. This is not what you’ll read in the literature, but in practice it becomes obvious. This time I would like to move forward and address the idea that law-keeping = loving Jesus
Originally posted here:
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Yesterday I scratched the surface of Relevance Theory in respect to preaching. Let’s look at it a bit more (accepting that there is so much that could be written if we were to really do justice to the theory, as well as to preaching). To reject the need for relevance is naïve. Actually, those who reject the need for relevance and simply preach the Word in a more scholarly and abstract way are still relevant to their listeners. The problem is that the relevance is much weaker. For example, people listen because they have a perceived need to hear a sermon in church, or a fleshly sense of the need to be pressured religiously (or even, that enduring under the sound of biblical teaching is somehow healthy in and of itself, like uncomfortable spiritual callisthenics). The solution to a self-centred pragmatic applicationalism is not to resist relevance and application. Rather it is to see two stages to the solution, rather than one. At one level listeners are distracted and discouraged and perhaps even self-concerned. Offering relevance in a message so that they listen and engage is simply wisdom in action. As I start a message I can assume that the listeners are distracted and not fully engaged. As I demonstrate the relevance of the speaker, the message and the text, early on in the message, I am motivating listening. As I surface a need from the text that stirs interest in the listener, I am motivating engagement. But my message won’t simply meet a felt need. Rather, that is the entrance, the first level of relevance.
Read more:
Revisiting Relevance
A massive global evangelical gathering known as the Lausanne Congress will begin Oct. 16 in Cape Town, South Africa. But it looks likely to take place without the participation of 230 Chinese delegates.
Here is the original post:
Beijing Blocks Travelers To Christian Conference
Paul Harvey I’m working up a more coherent response to the God in America series, and hope to have that up soon. Over at Killling the Buddha , Nathan Schneider is live-blogging the series (last part is tonight), with Stephen Prothero (a major commentator on the series) and others joining in the fun, so check that out if you want to chat about the show while watching it.
Read the original:
God in America Alongside the Myth of American Religous Freedom
I’ve been watching GOD IN AMERICA these past two nights and I have mixed feelings about the way it tells the story. I thought it was particularly good on the various revival periods and on painting with a very broad brush. There were way too many talking heads and not enough visuals, visions and stills.
See original here:
God in America and the Story of The Episcopal Church
We can subconsciously slip into viewing preaching as something other than communication. How so? Well, we can slip into thinking it is about simply teaching information, or view it as a literary exercise (written and read), or view it as a liturgical procedure
Continued here:
People Communicate
There has been much discussion in Catholic circles about the new English-language translation of the Mass texts, not to mention the process that led to the recent approval by the Vatican of the final version. The changes are to be implemented during Advent 2011. Reaction among Catholics has been mixed.
Continued here:
For All or For Many