Skip to main content

Sermon application 3: seeing ourselves differently

This continues my thoughts on sermon application.
The theme passage for this discussion is Ephesians 4:22-24:
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
In my first post in this series, I said this passage suggests three interlocking lenses for sermon application:
  1. The way we think, our worldview;
  2. Who we are, as individual Christians, and corporately as families, churches and communities; and
  3. What we want, our desires.
My previous post addressed worldview - being "made new in the attitude of our mind". Here, I want to think about self-image.
When we become Christians, we are regenerated, we are "born again". As far as God is concerned, we're new people. Our old self died with Christ, and we are new people, raised with Christ in glory. We are partial, personal, individualised prolepses of how everything will be recreated when when Christ returns (John 3:3; Romans 6; 2 Cor 5:17; 1 Pet 1:23). Our challenge is to live out this new identity in Christ. This is difficult because the world we operate in is still in rebellion against Christ, our old self still drags us back, and the devil is still active to tempt us (Gal 5:16-17; Eph 6:10-13; 1 Pet 5:8-9; 1 John 2:15-17). It's the old trilogy: the world, the flesh and the devil.
So, when thinking about applying the passage, I ask: how does this passage shape our view of ourselves, our self-identity? How do we normally think of ourselves? How does the world want us to see ourselves? How is that different from what the passage demands?
This applies beyond us as individual Christians, it applies to us as:
  • family members – brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers;
  • a church, a community of Christians;
  • members of society generally: our social groups, ethnic groups, local communities.
  • other...?
Eg: what's the generally accepted, taken-for-granted, worldly attitude to church? Well, it could be any of the following:
  • it's an outpost of traditional, oppressive values - we should re-educate and enlighten them, or get rid of them [Richard Dawkins];
  • it's a bunch of old-fashioned eccentrics - we can laugh at them;
  • they can do what they want, as long as they don't stop me from doing what I want [this might be the most common attitude...?];
  • it's a place where I might go to get spiritual, personal healing when I feel like I need it [a "spiritualist", "consumer" attitude to church - maybe many of our regular attenders think like this?];
But what's God's attitude to his church, his people? 1 Pet 2:4-10 talks of the church as God's holy temple, built on the precious foundation of Christ himself. That means God considers his people to be precious and valuable. It also means we have a high, noble calling: to praise this God, who has brought us to himself.
If we think of ourselves, and our church community, in worldly ways, we will be embarrassed, or keep searching for a church where we are "comfortable", or only get involved in church if it's convenient to us - or something like that. But if we take our identity, and our calling, seriously, then we'll:
  • be motivated to praise God for bringing us into his community;
  • not be surprised when people mock and marginalise us - that's what they did to Jesus, so of course that's what they'll do to us;
  • think of church as a place to serve and care for others, not a place to be comfortable and expect everyone else to serve us; and
  • be eager to tell everyone that they're attitude to both Christ and his people are profoundly wrong.
Thoughts, anyone?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...