Brian Stiles on Church

Doctrinal Discrepancies

2010-08-08T14:07:00.000-07:00

Here’s a pictorial view of doctrinal discrepancies — how two groups’ areas of agreement and disagreement on beliefs may or may not overlap with each other and with the truth:

God’s truth.

Group A’s understanding of truth (beliefs).

Group B’s understanding of truth (beliefs).

Assumptions: No group holds only beliefs that are actually true. No group holds all true beliefs. In other words, every group holds some false beliefs, and every group lacks some actual truths.

Case 1

Neither group agrees with the other. Neither holds to any actual truth.

Case 2

Both groups agree on some beliefs, disagree on others. Neither holds to any actual truth.

Case 3

Both groups agree on some beliefs, disagree on others. One holds to some actual truth, the other does not. The area of agreement is on falsehoods.

Case 4

Both groups agree on some beliefs, disagree on others. Both hold to some actual truths. Areas of agreement may be on actual truths or may be on falsehoods. Areas of disagreement may be on actual truths or may be on falsehoods.

Takeaway

If Group A disagrees with Group B, neither should assume that the other’s beliefs are necessarily false. It is common to assume that where the other group disagrees, they hold false beliefs. They may be false, but since every group lacks some true beliefs, it is possible that the disagreement is because one group holds actually true beliefs that the other lacks.

[Note: I have not discussed (intentionally) whether or not some actually true beliefs are more important than others. It may or may not be the case that one group holds actually true beliefs that another group does not hold, and that those disputed actually true beliefs are critically important. Also, there are a few more possible combinations, but of marginal value to the discussion.]

Freedom in Christ

2010-08-08T13:34:00.000-07:00

Another fantastic post from my little sister. This one on freedom in Christ.

How Imperfect Is Too Imperfect?

2010-02-28T18:02:00.000-08:00

For some things, imperfection matters. To the extent I’m not a perfect husband, my wife suffers. To the extent a church isn’t perfect, the body suffers. Most understand imperfection is unavoidable and so make allowances.

But there is such a thing as too much imperfection. A church that rejects Christ is not a church. A church that teaches heresy can be responsible for the loss of souls (cf. Revelation 2–3). Some imperfections call for a parting of ways.

What about a church whose lack of Biblical exposition belies their claim of Biblical authority? What about the church that claims sola scriptura but spends every Sunday morning expositing the pastor’s secular wisdom?

I’m thankful that my wife and I have taken a long term view of our marriage and have chosen not to walk away upon discovery of serious imperfection, but rather have worked together toward correcting the imperfection. Should we as members of a local church body not give the same commitment to our imperfect churches? Where do we draw the line which if crossed requires the parting of ways?

Animals Do It

2009-12-22T11:54:00.000-08:00

Some argue that behavior X is “natural” and shouldn’t be condemned as immoral, citing observations of the behavior in animals throughout the animal kingdom.

Here are a few behaviors observed among animals unlikely to be cited in this justification:

Rape
Gang rape
Sexual cannibalism
Sadism
Necrophilia
Killing, crippling, maiming for sport
Leaving the weak to die
Eating their young
Theft

Of course, the above behaviors may not be commonplace among animals (though some are pretty common among certain species), but then, neither are those behaviors that are used as a justification for human behavior. We need a way to distinguish between moral and immoral behavior, and the practice or occurance of a behavior in the animal kingdom is clearly not a sufficient test distinguishing the moral from the immoral.

Revelation 3:20 and the Sinner’s Prayer

2008-11-24T23:06:00.000-08:00

“Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.”

The image of Jesus knocking at the door [of our heart] is perhaps one of the most common modern images of Jesus (at least in my experience), and it is symbolic of Revelation 3:20. On the surface, this seems like a good verse in support of the notion of asking Christ into one’s heart à la the Sinner’s Prayer.

Pro

In the text, Jesus is talking to the Laodicean church and says nothing of one’s heart. Nonetheless, there is something personal about his offer in distinction from the surrounding context which is directed at the corporate church at Laodicea. It seems reasonable to infer that Jesus means for us to understand this as a matter of personal relationship. The act of dining with one—particularly if it is correct to emphasize the individual nature of the proposition—is evocative of an intimate relationship. The heart is symbolic of the part of our soul through which intimate relationships would obtain, so the understanding of “Jesus knocking at the door” as “of our heart” is reasonable.

Con

Even if the above is true, the text only goes so far as supporting the idea that Christ can metaphorically reside in our heart (personal relationship).

The most obvious problem with this passage is that the invitation is reversed relative to the Sinner’s Prayer in which the sinner is offering the invitation. Jesus is the one “requesting” the relationship, not the one behind the door.

It is also a problem that it seems pretty clear that Jesus is addressing believers deserving of reproof and in need of repentance (or at least those who have made a false or insincere profession of faith), not outright non-believers.

(This is part of a set of posts meant to be read together.)

(Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.)

Sinner’s Prayer polemics get no response?

2008-11-23T20:53:00.001-08:00

It seems odd to me that after searching fairly extensively, I can find very few counterarguments in response to the arguments against the validity of the Sinner’s Prayer. It may be that I’m just not looking in the right places, but so far, I’ve found a plethora of arguments against and scant few for. Of course, I can find plenty of invitations to say the Sinner’s Prayer, and by implication, these are pro-validity, but they are not arguments defending the position.

So, is the contra-validity side unmatched because there simply is no sufficient argument in favor of the Sinner’s Prayer, or is the response lacking because the contra-validity side is tearing down straw men?

(This is part of a set of posts meant to be read together.)

The Sinner’s Prayer

2008-11-23T17:51:00.000-08:00

Turns out, the Sinner’s Prayer is controversial in some Christian circles. A question came up about it amongst some friends the other day, and I realized that I had never really given it much thought before—the Sinner’s Prayer is just one of those things that kind of make up the background scenery that I take for granted in Christian life.

So, as with most questions, I started with a quick search on Google. The top hits contained many critiques (against Sinner’s Prayer). I never before realized that there are a fair number of Christians that are quite opposed to the Sinner’s Prayer. I was surprised to find—probably shouldn’t have been—that some people think that the use of the Sinner’s Prayer by evangelists actually hinders salvation and is wrong.

Here are some of the questions I’m left with after browsing through some of the positions:

Is there truly no Biblical precedent for such a prayer?
Is it truly a false teaching and a stumbling block, or is it just another useful device that has perhaps become more of an issue than it should be (for good and bad)?
Is the contention over this issue valid, or does the fact that some get worked up about it say more about their disposition than the issue itself?

(This is part of a set of posts meant to be read together.)

Those who do not learn history…

2008-10-14T23:27:00.000-07:00

Here’s a good reason to evaluate “modern” ideas in light of history.

Expository versus topical preaching, part 2

2008-09-24T21:18:00.000-07:00

(Part of a series.) Though I argued that expository teaching should probably be the default approach in most cases, I didn’t argue that expository teaching in and of itself is inherently superior to a topical approach. In fact, here is an argument for the merit of topical preaching:

We are confronted with challenges in life not directly or comprehensively addressed in the Bible.
- Where will we run across an expository sermon that deeply informs our views about just political and economic systems?
- Where is the abortion issue addressed (thoroughly)?
- How do we best raise our children?
The Bible is the final authority on knowledge of reality, but it is not exhaustive.
Some important topics won’t be addressed directly if teaching is exclusively expository.
Therefore, churches that want good teaching on Sunday mornings should sometimes incorporate topical preaching.

Note that I am not arguing that topical is required depending upon the hearer’s prior understanding or lack of understanding of the Bible. I am saying that some topics are necessarily addressed in a topical manner because the Bible does not address them in a direct or comprehensive manner, and therefore can’t be exposited.

Expository versus topical preaching, part 1

2008-09-22T23:57:00.000-07:00

(Part of a series.) From Wikipedia: Expository preaching differs from topical preaching in that the former concentrates on a specific text and discusses topics covered therein, whereas the latter concentrates on a specific topic and references texts covering the topic.

I argue:

Good expository teaching requires less preparatory effort than good topical preaching, on the whole.
- Expository primarily unearths what’s already there, and what has been expounded upon for two thousand years.
- Topical typically seeks new formulations and requires more innovation.
Most teachers fall back on rhetorical technique to make up for a lack of preparation (when the available preparation time runs out).
Most churches have limited resources/time for preparing the weekly sermon.
- Usually just one pastor does the bulk of the preaching throughout the year, in addition to other duties.
- It is difficult not to rely regularly on technique rather than substance to make up for a lack of time available for preparation.
Therefore, churches that want good teaching on Sunday mornings should focus more on expository preaching.

I intend to refine and extend this argument in future posts, but feel free to throw bricks at me if you disagree, or bolster my argument if you agree.

(If you comment without a Google account, don’t forget that there’s an option above “Anonymous” that allows you to add your name to your comment.)

Update: I mean topical in the more de facto sense in which, at least in my experience, it is typciallly the case that the pastor chooses a topic and largely gives his thoughts and the thoughts of other extra-Biblical thinkers on the topic and backs them up with supporting scripture.

Head or heart evangelism or both?

2008-09-17T23:17:00.000-07:00

I love this. Fred Sanders is a very talented (and very funny) theologian—one of the most enjoyable lecturers I’ve had in the Defending the Faith Lecture Series.

Open season for comments (off topic—admin)

2008-09-16T00:54:00.001-07:00

I am now very hesitantly allowing comments from persons without a Google/OpenID account. If you wanted to comment but were prevented because you didn’t have a Google account, now you can comment. I am hesitant about this for two reasons. First, I loathe spam, and this makes it easier for blog-spam to creep in. Hopefully, Blogger blocks that, and it won’t become an issue. The second reason is a more difficult problem.

From what I’ve seen, the ability to say things behind the veil of internet anonymity can often cheapen the level of discourse. Some people (internet passers-by and trolls) make really vile, vulgar, or vitriolic comments when they feel they can’t be held accountable. I really prefer that anything that is said on this blog is said with accountability. However, I know that it’s a real hassle to have to have a Google account to post, so I’m removing that restriction. The good news is that for now, so few people (I think at least one person other than me has read it recently!) read the blog, it will likely be a long time (if ever) before there’s enough traffic to attract trolls.

Should Christians bemoan offshored American jobs?

2008-09-13T12:00:00.000-07:00

I’d like to point out a bright side to the regrettable problem of American jobs lost to low wage workers in less developed nations. In general, this flow of jobs from the richer nation(s) to poorer nations elevates the quality of life for people living in those nations far more than our quality of life is diminished, and our opportunity to regain what is lost is far greater than their opportunity to raise their standard of living to something we wouldn’t find unacceptable.

Compare what it means to be poor in America versus poor in many of these other nations. Our statistical definition of being poor allows for eating regularly, owning a car, owning a television, living in decent housing, and having free access to education. That is a level of wealth unknown to much of the world, and poverty here need only be—and usually is—a temporary starting point. In contrast, being poor in these other places likely means not having enough food or clean drinking water, having no education, limited access to medical care, limited transportation, substandard housing, and little hope for improvement.

Surely with our wealth, infrastructure, and freedom we can find new ways to create economic value, and therefore new jobs, as we have time and time again, in order to more than make up for the lost jobs. Is there similar opportunity in these other countries?

So, though I don’t wish unemployment on Americans, when I think about conditions of various people groups around the world, I have to see the shift of some of our wealth their way as a net positive. It also represents an opportunity for Christians to help see that these jobs are good jobs and that they are made available to people who could most benefit from them.

A little encouragement for the dispirited perfectionist

2008-09-10T17:53:00.000-07:00

For those of us who tend to be perfectionists and tend to beat ourselves up over our failures, it can be easy to get discouraged by repeatedly falling short. I heard some advice listening to William Lane Craig the other day that encouraged me. When you “sense that you have sinned, don’t feel guilty about it and recriminate yourself. Go to God immediately in confession, and to say, ‘God, I know I’ve blown it again. Forgive me, I turn from this.’ And then claim his promise that you’re a forgiven person, and then ask him to fill you again—to take control of your life again…” That is, admit the mistake, ask for forgiveness, and move on. This is a habit I’d like to build.

I tend to accumulate my mistakes as heavy baggage that I carry continually because I tend to look at my life history and weigh the good versus the bad. Regardless if there’s a place for that kind of reflection, it can be very counterproductive as a habit—putting focus on the past rather than the present. Please, God, help me to be honest with my mistakes, accept your forgiveness, and live in your presence, not my past!

Tips for reading faster

2008-09-06T08:08:00.001-07:00

Don’t sound out words or “speak” the words in your mind as you read. Try to hum a pitch while reading or whatever it takes to break this habit. It took me weeks of trying (after developing the habit for more than three decades) to break free. I still have to be conscious about this, but it has made a huge difference in my reading speed.

Don’t let your mind wander. Our minds can absorb speech or text many times faster than the average person talks. Most people, because of the above habit, read only as fast as they talk. Therefore, when we read so slowly, our attention tends to drift while waiting for the written words to catch up with our thoughts. Consciously force yourself not to let your mind wander while reading. I still struggle with this, but it gets easier with practice and with faster reading speeds.

Don’t re-read what you’ve just read. When we read slowly, it is common to let our minds wander, realize that we’re wandering, and go back a sentence or two and re-read. I suggest that it’s more important to work to break the re-reading habit than it is to comprehend or recall everything you’re reading—until the habit is broken. If you read the Bible more and faster, you’ll catch what you missed next time or when you choose to study that passage more deeply outside your habitual reading. As you read faster, this will be less of a problem.

Choose a Bible that:

has large, readable print.
is paragraph formatted (rather than each verse starting on a new line) which makes for smoother eye movements and flows better.
has paper that is sufficiently opaque so that the lettering on the opposite side of the page doesn’t bleed through and obscure what you’re reading.

Sadly, many modern Bibles don’t meet most of these criteria.

Red letter Bibles aren’t as good for sustained reading because of the low contrast of the red-on-white lettering.

Some types of literary genres allow for faster reading speeds, while others require slower speeds. Narrative (stories of actions and events) can be read quite fast, typically. I can reach my peak reading speeds in a book like Genesis. Proverbs, on the other hand, requires nearly the slowest reading speed. The reason has to do with the amount of information packed into the text. Narrative tends to use lots of words to describe actions and events that can be rather simple conceptually. Proverbs tend to pit two concepts against each other, often using metaphor. Much of the meaning conveyed by the proverb comes from reflection on the deeper concepts themselves in comparison or contrast to one another. Their whole purpose is to summarize deep truths in a short, pithy saying.

In reading the Bible, does quantity beget quality?

2008-09-04T23:30:00.000-07:00

Do you ever feel defeated reading the Bible—daunted by the volume of scripture you have never really read?—uncertain where to start?—not sure how to go about digesting such a dense, rich work. If so, maybe this will help.

A “typical” approach to reading the Bible is devotional-style reading—spending fifteen to thirty minutes reading maybe a chapter or two from the New Testament, a psalm, some proverbs, and maybe some Old Testament. The idea is to read God’s word every day and to meditate on that chunk throughout the day. For reasons I won’t expound now, I’m not convinced that’s ideal, and it has never been effective for me (could be my failing).

In contrast and perhaps counterintuitively, I suggest that reading more of the Bible, faster can be more fruitful than reading smaller portions more meticulously. By “more” and “faster”, I mean spending that same fifteen to thirty minutes and reading ten to fifteen pages (e.g., all of Romans or all of Revelation). At such a pace, you can complete the New Testament in under twenty days or the Old Testament in about three months as I recently started doing.

Here are some benefits I get:

Most of all, I get a better sense of the broader narrative or a deeper understanding of the over-arching and interplaying arguments in a treatise. It is easy to miss the forest for the trees when focusing on the details and reading more slowly.
I naturally stumble upon scriptures that relate to recent questions or situations that have arisen. It’s hard to “look up” answers to every question that arises, and, frankly, I’m often not motivated. But as I come across a relevant passage, I’ll recall a recent question that it addresses, thereby getting a delayed answer to my question.
Reading through the entire Bible regularly and frequently gives me more confidence about what isn’t in the Bible. Have you ever been challenged with a claim about scripture that didn’t seem quite right, or confronted a dubious truism—like “God helps those who help themselves”—, but you weren’t certain it wasn’t Biblical?
Of course, it gives me more confidence about and knowledge of what is in the Bible, too.
It has made reading more fun and the challenge has motivated me to make a habit of it. I have never before been consistent about reading the Bible. I used to read slowly and in little chunks and just didn’t get the bigger picture. I was discouraged by the sheer volume of what I wasn’t reading. Now that it’s a habit, it just gets easier and easier.

What are the drawbacks? I am prone to miss details, and I sometimes don’t comprehend certain passages as well as I could—particularly, dense or akwardly worded passages. I’m satisfied with the trade-off, since I compensate for these deficiencies with repetition. And besides, this isn’t a replacement for Bible study, it is a daily reading regimen.

♦♦♦

Here’s a reading schedule that will get you through the New Testament in seventeen days. I have found that it’s a little more productive to split the New Testament up by book rather than simply reading a certain number of pages each day—the goal being to read books in their entirety in one sitting if possible.

Matthew 1–17
Matthew 18–28
Mark
Luke 1–11
Luke 12–24
John 1–10
John 11–21
Acts 1–14
Acts 15–28
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

Is church unity all it’s cracked up to be?

2008-08-31T15:47:00.001-07:00

Calls for church unity are often presented as matters of inviolable commandment from God. I contend that unity is not always right. Rather, disunity has an important and necessary function—disuniting being sometimes the right thing to do.

Churches sometimes have conflicts, pitting one portion against another. Unity advocates usually draw from Jesus’ many commands and exhortations to be united, such as John 13:35, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”—or from Paul’s writings such as 1 Corinthians 1:10, “Now I exhort you…that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you…”. Ending the debate here fails to give a valid conflict its due consideration and, by implication, diminishes the importance of the issues involved. If the pursuit of unity always trumps the issues in conflict, then it’s difficult to see that there is anything worth fighting for.

Of course, unity is the ideal. Jesus in his last address to his disciples is clear that unity is important and to be desired. But the unity commanded is not a unity of conformity or of equality in an unrestricted sense. Different members of the body have unequal abilities and strengths—some are stronger, some are less honorable, etc. (1 Corinthians 12, Romans 14). Biblical unity does not mean that there are no distinctions at all.

As not all members are of equal innate strength or honorableness, it is also clear that some ideas, attitudes, behaviors, etc. are in error, and that unity in error is not better than disunity. Some things do trump unity. Paul is explicit about this in Romans 16:17–18, “…keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For…they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.”. Causing dissensions (disunity) is bad, but what is his remedy for dealing those who do so? We are to turn away (disunite) from them. Why? Because they can harm the weaker parts of the body if allowed to continue. So, disunity is valid as a defensive measure.

Jesus, in addition to claiming to come to bring division—of a sort (Luke 12:49–53)—gave a prescription for disuniting in Matthew 18. Confront your errant brother in private. If he doesn’t listen, go again with a few witnesses. If that doesn’t work, bring him before the elders. If all else fails, break fellowship (disunite) with him. This prescription makes clear that disunity, though valid, is a measure of last resort. We first try to resolve our differences for the edification of the one in the wrong, cautiously escalating the issue only as necessary until, when all means of resolution are exhausted, we disunite.

So, unity is the ideal, but it is a unity of diversity, not of conformity or of equality in an unrestricted sense. Some things trump unity. Unity in error is not better than disunity. Disunity sometimes is the right solution, but it is a defensive measure and a measure of last resort.

(Scripture quotations taken from the NASB)

Unity and disunity in the church, part 2 (podcast)

2008-08-30T22:37:00.000-07:00

As discussed previously, I went long speaking to my parents’ Sunday school class about unity and disunity in the church, and they graciously invited me to come back to finish up. I figured for sure I’d be able to wrap up in my 30 allotted minutes. Well, what was supposed to be one 30 minute talk went over the first week, and went over even further finishing it up the second week. I appreciate the group’s patience.

In this session, I finished the discussion proper of unity and disunity, and then we turned the discussion to the practical application of the material to the hymns versus choruses debate. Wow! What a lot of fun that was! I love lively group participation, and they didn’t disappoint.

Listen now (52m 36s, ~12MB)

Unity and disunity in the church, part 1 (podcast)

2008-08-30T20:55:00.000-07:00

I was given the opportunity to speak to my parents’ Sunday school class. I was given liberty to talk about whatever I wanted, but it was suggested that something related to tolerance would be an interesting subject. Knowing there had been discussion about hymns versus praise choruses at the church, I figured that’d be a good catalyst for some lively discussion and a fine object lesson for a discussion of unity and disunity in the church.

I used to be very anxious about teaching in a class setting since that usually means filling up a set amount of time with lecture. Like most (I assume), I used to worry that I would burn through all my material in half the class time and stand there looking dumb with nothing to say until the end of class. Well, I’m apparently much more of a chatterbox that I thought, because I rarely finish under time.

This was one of those times when I so fully underestimated my subject matter that I didn’t even get half-way through before class was supposed to end. The group was very gracious and invited me to come back the following week and finish.

Listen now (42m 20s, ~9.7MB)

My Bible reading spree

2008-08-26T00:21:00.000-07:00

Christopher Lee, talking about his role as Saruman in The Lord of the Rings (LotR), said he read the book once a year because he treasured it so much and got so much out of it each time. That struck me as admirable, since I, too, love that book. It occurred to me that if that's worthwhile with LotR, it's far more worthwhile with the Bible. Why shouldn't I make a habit of reading the Bible once a year? Well, for one thing, the Bible's a really big book, and I've always been a slow reader. But it's really only twice as long as LotR, that can be read once a year, why not the Bible?

This stuck in my mind. Then back in January, for some reason, I had the urge to read the King James version of the Bible (specifically that version for the linguistic qualities). I started reading something like five pages a day, the very first thing I did every day. At first, it was fairly slow going—add the foreignness of the King's English to my poor reading habits, and I was spending about 20–30 minutes just to get through that. Still, even at that pace, I was going to finish in something like six months. And, I was enjoying the reading! It's quite a different experience reading the Bible as a whole rather than in snippets (more on that in a subsequent post).

I quickly decided that if this level of reading was fun, it would be even more fun if I could read faster, so I did some research on reading techniques and came up with a plan to improve my speed. Over the course of about four months, I more than doubled my reading speed. That may seem like a long time, but it really wasn't that bad. Because I was reading every day anyway, the effort to learn to read faster was just a matter of applying the techniques as I read.

Reading twice as fast, I could spend half the time reading as before, or I could double the amount I read each day. I was actually enjoying reading so much that I doubled what I read and doubled the time I spent reading. I decided to double-up by reading the New Testament and Old Testament each day on parallel tracks, and in addition, I started reading a couple pages of Psalms and one chapter of Proverbs each day. At my current pace, I read the New Testament once every 17 days and the Old Testament once every 70 days (roughly) in just under one hour a day.

The point of this post is to encourage you that it is possible to make it a habit to read through the Bible multiple times a year—though once a year is great—, and that it is rewarding. There's no better way to get to know the Bible than to read it, and I don't know any better way to read through it than to make a daily habit of reading it. I'll talk later about why I think it's so rewarding and how it compares to other approaches to reading the Bible.

Memorize the Bible in 20 minutes a day

2008-08-21T00:10:00.000-07:00

Well, memorize small portions of it, anyway. Truly, you can memorize the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew (chapters 5, 6, and 7) in just ten weeks, spending no more than twenty minutes a day.

Having scripture memorized can be satisfying—particularly when you're at Bible study and can wow the crowd by responding to a question with verses you quote from memory—but incorporating scriptural principles into your life by habitually acting on what you read or by conforming your character to it is far better, so why bother?

Scripture memorization builds mental fitness through disciplined exercise, increases our comprehension by building foundational knowledge, prepares us to recall scripture when our circumstance calls for an answer, and perhaps most importantly stimulates us to ponder more deeply key portions of God's word.

At one point, I had something like 400 verses memorized, but having memorized the 100 or so verses of Sermon on the Mount has given me the most reward, by far. The Sermon on the Mount is perhaps the greatest and most influential moral treatise in history. It also is the foundation for much of the New Testament. As I read the New Testament with the Sermon committed to memory, I frequently discover correlations from other passages back to the Sermon. Sometimes a precept is expanded upon or given further detail. Sometimes just by shear repetition, the importance of an idea is reinforced. In any case, the ability to hang all these other scriptures on the framework of the Sermon is a tremendous tool for increased understanding and learning.

Another project I've found useful is to take a book like Romans and find the key verses in each chapter that capture the main thought and memorize them. In this way, I can keep an outline of the book committed to memory. Then, every time I read Romans, I'm increasing my comprehension by expanding and reinforcing an existing mental framework, rather than starting from scratch each time.

Finally, we probably all have experienced people misquoting the Bible. Committing the oft-misquoted verses to memory prepares us to respond with truth by quoting the verse correctly.

The technique, which I've described elsewhere in detail, is very simple. It is simply a matter of writing the verses on a set of index cards and speaking them out loud (reading from the card as necessary) seven times each day for the first week, two times each day for the next two weeks, twice one day a week for the next twelve weeks and then once a month thereafter. The trick is in building “muscle memory” by speaking the verses aloud. No mental tricks necessary. It's really that simple, and I've gotten some feedback from others that it really works.

Kristy starts blogging!

2008-08-20T16:33:00.000-07:00

Ponderings and the Like is my little sister's blog, which sets the bar high—in her second post, she's already talking about tackling global evils. I started my first blog about a year and a half ago and she's already got three times as many posts as I do! Hers will be a very interesting blog to watch. Being my little sister, I enjoy few things more than giving her a hard time, particularly about her church, but in all seriousness, there are few people whose thoughts on church—and other—issues I find as thoughtful.