Feed My Sheep

FEED MY
SHEEP
Preaching the Gospel in a Postmodern

Postmodern
New Zealand Society
John A Haverland
2 Feed My Sheep
3
FEED MY
SHEEP
Preaching the Gospel in a Postmodern
Postmodern
New Zealand Society
John A Haverland
4 Feed My Sheep
© John A Haverland 2000
First published 2000

Reprinted May 2001
This electronic edition produced May 2003
ISBN 0-9582145-1-4
Published by
Grace & Truth Publicatons

P.O. Box 8979, Christchurch, New Zealand
e-mail: [email protected]
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or

transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise), without the prior permission of Grace & Truth Publications.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, New
International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society.
Cover photograph
Pastoral scene from Canterbury, New Zealand
Cover & book design by Dafydd Hughes

5
DEDICATION
DEDICATION
To my parents,
for your selfless love,
for your Christian example,
for your dedication to the church of the Lord.
To my wife, Harriet,
for all your help in this project,
for your loving companionship in marriage,
for your willing support in the ministry of the gospel.
To our children,
William, Joanna, Michael and Peter,
who will be part of the next generation;
may you live to see a reformation and revival
in this country brought about by the preaching of the Word.
6 Feed My Sheep
John Bunyan’s
“GODL
“GODLYYP ASTOR”
PASTOR”
Now Interpreter led the pilgrim into a private room, and there he ordered his man
to open a door. Then did Christian see the picture of a very grave [serious,
important] person hanging against the wall, and its features were as follows. This
man had his eyes directed up toward heaven, the best of books in his hand, the
law of truth was written upon his lips, the world was behind his back; he stood as
if he pleaded with men, and a crown of gold hung over his head.
CHRISTIAN: What then does this mean?
INTERPRETER: The man in the picture which
you see is one in a thousand, who can beget
children, travail in birth with children, and nurse
them himself when they are born.
And just as you see him with his eyes
looking up toward heaven, the best of books
in his hand, and the law of truth written on his
lips, this is to show you that his work is to know
and unfold dark things to sinners. Similarly,
just as you see him stand as if he pleaded with
men, and also you notice that the world is cast
behind him, and that a crown hangs over his
head, this is to show you that, in slighting and
despising the things of the present, on account
of his love and devotion to his Master’s service,
he is sure to have glory for his reward in the
world to come.
Now I have showed you this picture first,
because the man who it portrays is the only
man who the Lord of the Celestial City has
authorized to be your guide in all of the difficult
situations that you may encounter along the
way. Therefore pay attention to what I have
showed you, and carefully weigh in your mind
what you have seen lest, in your journey, you
meet with some that pretend to lead you along
the right path, while in reality their way leads
to death.
The picture above portrays John Bunyan as the godly pastor described by the Interpreter. Both
the engraving and the text are taken from Barry Horner’s revised edition of The Pilgrim’s Progress.
7
CONTENTS
Preface 8
INTRODUCTION 11
PART I: THE NECESSITY OF PREACHING
1 The State of Preaching 17
2 Is Preaching Effective? 21
3 Is Preaching Authoritative? 52
4 Is Preaching Relevant? 71
PART II: UNDERSTANDING OUR NEW ZEALAND CONTEXT
1 A General Historical Overview 93
2 The Influence of Christianity in New Zealand 112
3 The Secularism of Contemporary New Zealand Society 133
4 Loss of Truth in Contemporary New Zealand Society 146
5 Pluralism in Contemporary New Zealand Society 161
6 The Fragmentation of Contemporary New Zealand Society 172
7 Relativism in Contemporary New Zealand Society 181
8 Consumerism and a Loss of Hope in Contemporary 185
New Zealand Society
PART III: PREACHING THE GOSPEL IN OUR
POSTMODERN NEW ZEALAND SITUATION
Introduction 195
1 Preach the Reality of God 201
2 Preach the Truth of the Bible 208
3 Preach the Uniqueness of Jesus as Lord 231
4 Preach the Biblical Doctrine of the Church 239
5 Preach the Absolutes of God’s Law 247
6 Preach Contentment and Hope in Christ 257
CONCLUSION 271
Appendix 276
Notes 284
Bibliography 306
8 Feed My Sheep
PREFACE
This book is about communicating the eternal truth of the Bible in our
present context. I have written it specifically for our New Zealand
situation but the analysis and the principles will apply to other
countries in our western world. My aim has been to write for fellow
pastors who are also called to “Preach the Word” and who want to do
that more effectively in this nation; yet I trust this book will be of interest
and help to all Christians.
I want to acknowledge those who have contributed to this in some
way. My thanks, first of all, to my dear wife, Harriet, who supported my
desire to begin, bore the time apart without complaint and patiently
encouraged me to persevere with it to completion. She has also
provided much assistance with typing, proof-reading and the
bibliography. She has been “a helper suitable” to me in every way.
I am grateful to my father, Gerard, and to my late mother, Johanna,
who raised me in a Christian home, taught me the Bible and gave me
a consistent example of Christian living as well as much
encouragement.
While I was a pupil at Middleton Grange School, in Christchurch,
Don Capill taught me to think carefully about the relationship between
Christianity and the contemporary culture, and the importance of
applying what we believe to the world in which we live.
For the past seventeen years I have served two congregations, one
in Bucklands Beach, Auckland, and another in Bishopdale,
Christchurch. The members of these two churches have stretched me
in the ministry and have listened attentively as I have sought, with
varying degrees of success, to put these ideas into practice in my
sermons. Particular thanks are due to the elders and deacons of the
Reformed Church of Bishopdale who supported my desire to take up
this project and allowed me time to read and write.
This book was written as a thesis for a Doctor of Ministry degree
through Westminster Theological Seminary in California. I am grateful
Preface 9
to Grace Stewart and her late husband, Tom, for financial assistance
provided through their Student Aid Award - their generosity made it
possible for me to enter the programme and pursue this study. My
thanks to Dr. Joseph Pipa who helped me define the subject and who
supervised the thesis.
In my research I conducted a number of interviews with Christian
leaders in New Zealand and had many discussions with fellow pastors
in the Minister’s Association in the North West of Christchurch and
with another smaller group of ministers in the city. I also had
opportunity to present some of this material in lectures to fellow
ministers in the Reformed Churches of New Zealand at a ministers’
conference. Feedback and comment from all these forums helped
guide my research and shaped and clarified my thinking. In 1996 I sat
in on Kevin Ward’s class on “The Gospel in a Post-Christian Society”
at the Bible College in Christchurch and benefited from the lectures
and the class discussion.
A special word of thanks to Paul and Sally Davey for their interest
and support all the way, especially to Sally for reading the manuscript
a number of times and for her invaluable help and guidance.
After it was all written Dafydd Hughes offered to help me publish
this book through Grace and Truth Publications so that I can get it to
you, the reader. My sincere thanks to him for his willing service and
careful attention to detail.
Finally, my thanks to the Lord who has called me to be a believer in
the Lord Jesus, a son in his family, a husband and a father, a servant
of the gospel, a pastor of God’s flock and a preacher of his Word.
This book is published with the hope and prayer that it may be
useful to pastors, and indeed to all Christians who want to
communicate the gospel of the Lord Jesus in our present context.
John A Haverland
Christchurch
August 2000
10 Feed My Sheep
11
INTRODUCTION
Every Sunday in New Zealand the vast majority of this country’s

inhabitants will indulge in a variety of Sunday activities that range from
sleeping off the effects of the previous night’s party to a day out on the
harbour or the sports field. A small percentage of the population will
forgo these pastimes in order to attend church. This minority will
gather in traditional church buildings, modern auditoriums or school
halls. For part of the service they will listen to someone deliver a
message from the Bible. This person – a minister, priest or lay-person
– will probably have spent a good number of hours preparing their
sermon.
I am one of these ministers. A major part of my responsibility is to
preach the good news of the gospel, as it is of every preacher and
pastor. After his resurrection Jesus commissioned Peter with the
words; “Feed my sheep” – an apt phrase in the pastoral situation of first
century Palestine, and an appropriate exhortation for our New
Zealand setting. Yet many of us who do this work have some questions
at times, even nagging doubts. What exactly are we doing each
Sunday? How effective is the sermon as a means of communication?
Can we really expect Christians, who live in a secular and pagan
society like ours, to understand the message of the Bible? And will non-
Christians, who might hear us preaching, understand anything of what
we are saying?
This book seeks to answer some of these questions. It is a book
about preaching. My aim in writing is to encourage pastors to see that
God has ordained preaching as the primary means of communicating
his Word, and that to preach effectively we must understand the Bible
and apply it to the situation we are living in. We are called to preach in
a day when we are Moving Between Times.1 By this we mean that we
are moving out of modernity and into postmodernity; out of a time
dominated by reason, science, and technology, and into a time
characterised by an emphasis on experience, the decline of truth, and
12 Feed My Sheep
the promotion of pluralism. As pastors in New Zealand we are

preaching to fellow New Zealanders in the unique situation of our
nation. We want to preach so as to communicate the gospel in a way
that people can understand it and apply it to their lives. This book then,
is a plea for preaching – for sound, exegetical, expository preaching. It
is also a plea for relevant preaching – for preaching that understands
where we have come from and where we are and that applies the truth
of God’s Word to the present situation.
To support this plea I want to establish the need for preaching,
especially because so many object to this form of communication. Part
One, then, raises various objections to preaching: That it is ineffective,
that it carries no authority, and that it is irrelevant. In response I will
argue that preaching is both commanded by God and is an effective
means of communication; that expository preaching carries the
authority of the Word of God itself; and that it is relevant because it
deals with eternal issues and with the practical realities of people’s
lives. Having said this, pastors need to show that God’s Word is
relevant by applying it to our current situation. To do this well requires
that we understand the culture and society we live in. Part Two,
therefore, provides a brief overview of European history to help us see
where we have come from. It then examines some key features of our
history as a nation and raises the question as to whether we are, or ever
have been, a ‘Christian’ country. We then go on to examine some
primary characteristics of this ‘postmodern’ world, illustrating this with
New Zealand examples. In Part Three I offer some guidance as to how
we might apply God’s Word in our present context.
WHAT IS PREACHING?
It would be useful to begin with a definition of preaching. What are we

talking about? Preaching is the explanation and exposition of a
passage of the Scriptures, in the power of the Holy Spirit, applied in a
manner that demonstrates its relevance to the life and situation of the
Introduction 13
listeners. There are a number of parts to this definition, most of which

we will take up in more detail later. Yet some explanation is in order
here.
Preaching is the explanation and exposition of a passage of the
Scriptures. True preaching must arise out of the Bible, not out of our
own thoughts, nor out of current events in the world, nor out of other
books. The preacher’s task is to explain what the Bible meant to the
people then, and what it means to hearers today. It is to “expose” the
plain meaning of the passage being preached so that people
understand it.
No one can understand or explain the Bible without the help of the
Holy Spirit. Preaching, therefore, must be in the power of the Holy
Spirit. The Third Person of the Trinity inspired the human authors of
the Old and New Testament to write down exactly what he wanted
them to write. This same Spirit, who inspired the Bible, will also
illumine the mind of the prayerful preacher so that he can understand
the passage he is studying and enable him to preach God’s Word with
authority, conviction and power. The Spirit of Christ will also soften the
hearts and enlighten the minds of the people of God who are listening
so that they understand what is preached. Only the Holy Spirit can
accomplish this receptivity.
Yet the preacher must do all he can to make the Word of God clear
and to apply it in a manner that demonstrates its relevance to the life
and situation of the listeners. The words of the Bible were addressed to
people in different places and in diverse situations. God spoke to
Abraham in Ur 4000 years ago. David wrote his psalms while king over
Israel 3000 years ago. Jeremiah prophesied to the people of Judah in
the days leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian
armies in 587 BC. Ezekiel addressed the people of God as they lived in
exile in Babylon. Haggai and Zechariah and the writer of Chronicles
encouraged those who returned from the exile and struggled to rebuild
the temple and re-establish themselves in the land. Jesus lived, taught,
suffered, died, and rose again in first century Palestine under Roman
occupation. All these people lived in a world quite different from our
14 Feed My Sheep
own. Yet the Word of the Lord addressed to these people is also
addressed to us. God was at work in their lives, encouraging them in
their trials, punishing them for their sins, strengthening them in their
weakness, fulfilling his purposes in them and through them. In all of
this he was guiding history towards the coming of his One and Only
Son who was the fulfilment of his plan. Good preaching takes the
Word of God addressed to the people then, in their context, and
applies it to the lives of the people today so that they can see its
relevance to their situation.
Is this what is being preached on Sunday mornings from pulpits
throughout New Zealand? If you go into a local church on the Lord’s
Day will you hear this type of preaching? What is the state of preaching
in New Zealand at this time?
15
PART I
THE NECESSITY OF
PREACHING
16 Feed My Sheep
17
Chapter 1
THE STATE OF PREACHING
THE STATE OF PREACHING IN NEW ZEALAND
One summer my family and I were holidaying in Te Anau. On Sunday

we went along to the church we had located the previous day. As we
drove up a sign outside announced the presence of a “Live Band”,
obviously a novelty in this holiday resort. Sure enough, occupying the
entire front of this little building was a three piece band comprised of an
electric guitar, electronic drumset and a keyboard. After a brief
welcome from a local church member the band took over. The leader
announced that they hadn’t prepared anything and didn’t really know
what was going on but would take it as it came. After twenty minutes
of singing we were told to put our Bibles away under our seats (maybe
he noticed me clutching mine in anticipation of our first reading) as we
would not be needing them for a while. I dutifully put my Bible away.
No further reference was made to the Scriptures for the entire service
– there were no readings from the Bible, no sermon, and only one brief
prayer. The entire service consisted of songs, most of which were sung
by the band alone and most of which were unknown to the
congregation. During some of these (sunday-school-type) songs the
congregation was required to leap up out of their seats or to jump up
and down like Jack-in-the-boxes. Interspersed between these antics
were comments out of this man’s personal experiences. Other
Christians who attended with us were rather taken with this service and
found it different and refreshing. I was disappointed, especially by the
neglect of the preaching of the gospel and the absence of any serious
reference to the Bible.
It appears that this neglect of the Bible in churches is not unusual.
When my family and I have attended church services in a range of
denominations we have noticed that very few people bring a Bible to
18 Feed My Sheep
worship, whether or not pew Bibles are provided. Consequently, when

it comes to the reading of the Word of God very few people turn to their
Bibles to follow along. When the minister begins preaching few are
able to “examine the Scriptures” to see if what is said is true (Acts
17:11). Have ministers contributed to this situation? Have we created
an expectation that no one need bring their Bible because it is not all
that important? Do those who attend anticipate that they will not be
given time to turn to a passage being read, follow it, study it for
themselves, and compare what they read with what is being preached?
The churches we have worshipped in may not be typical, or
perhaps we just arrived on a bad Sunday. Yet we have to admit that
even in Bible believing evangelical and charismatic churches the
reading and preaching of the Bible is being displaced by many other
attractions. A service typically begins with an extended time of
‘worship’ where the congregation is required to repeat songs of a
lightweight theology, or even worse, which are downright heretical. It
is assumed that this creates the right ‘mood’ or ‘atmosphere’ for
worship, engendering good feelings in those attending. As the service
progresses there may be a time of testimony during which people can
speak about their own experiences of God. Increasingly churches are
adding liturgical dance, puppet presentations, drama and skits as well
as showing the occasional video. The poor cousin amongst all these
innovations is the preaching of the Word of God. Biblical preaching is
overshadowed by a plethora of novelties in worship.
Even where preaching remains a central part of the service it is not
always well done. In interviews with people from various
denominations and Christian organisations I asked people for their
evaluation of preaching in New Zealand today. Not one of those I
interviewed was positive or enthusiastic. All agreed that, generally
speaking, preaching in New Zealand was in a poor state. Certainly
there are wonderful exceptions, and New Zealand has some able
preachers, but they concurred with the assessment of one pastor who
said, “There are too few gifted preachers in our land”. Those
interviewed complained that preaching was sometimes full of waffle,
The State of Preaching 19
often dull, did not address the real issues people were facing, lacked
Biblical content, was weak and non-offensive and that it did not get
across the fundamentals of the faith. Much preaching in this country is
anecdotal rather than expository, a series of stories strung together
rather than a clear explanation of the Bible. After fourteen years ‘on the
road’ in New Zealand, Gordon Miller of World Vision came to the
conclusion that there is not much “informed, content-filled preaching
and teaching around.”2 It would seem that too few pastors know what
to preach or how to preach faithfully from the Bible.
Some of this can be attributed to a lack in seminary training. A high
proportion of pastors in some denominations have had little
theological education; if they have, more often than not, their training
has been thin on exegesis in the original languages and on homiletics.
The Baptist Union churches noted “a paucity in worship and
preaching” as one of the problems they faced.3 It is encouraging to
hear that a number of denominations are concerned about the low
level of preaching and are determined to see it improve. In 1997
leaders of the Baptist Union set a new direction for their denomination
in noting that preaching had to be more intentional, especially on
evangelism.4 They resolved to encourage better preaching through
exposure to good models and ongoing training. Between 1992 and
1997 the Salvation Army movement called its officers back for a three
week preaching course; over 120 officers out of a total pool of 380
active officers completed this course. A Seventh Day Adventist pastor
told me that in his denomination there was a growing awareness of the
need for Biblical preaching. These are encouraging signs but much
more needs to be done to lift the standard of preaching in this country.
That is the concern of this book.
THE STATE OF PREACHING GENERALLY
Poor preaching is not an isolated problem and certainly not unique to

New Zealand. Concerns about preaching can be heard from many
20 Feed My Sheep
parts of the world. Some church leaders observe that preachers seem
to have lost confidence in this form of communication. They no longer
take the trouble to study the Scriptures and their preaching lacks
authority and power.5 Others lament the lack of convicting preaching,
noting that many church-goers appear to view preaching as a
meaningless act. People do not come to church excited to hear a
sermon convinced that preaching is a transforming event. Rather, they
endure the preaching.6
It is hardly a surprise, therefore, that the number of church goers in
New Zealand is declining and that, with other novelties being added to
worship, those who do attend often have a poor knowledge of the
Bible. Some of the blame for this biblical ignorance must be placed at
the feet of preachers. People hear plenty of sermons but what sort of
sermons do they hear? Too often they listen to sermonettes producing
Christianettes; “pitiable little homilies” that do not encourage spiritual
maturity; “snippets of sermons” that do not yield the well rounded
Christian understanding we want to see.7 These sermons lack the
Biblical content and solid teaching required to convert the unbeliever
and to build up believers in their faith. Such poor preaching further
erodes people’s confidence in preachers and preaching and raises
more questions and objections to the whole place and role of the
sermon in society. Even in the church many object to preaching and
believe it has had its day. We need to note these objections so we can
face them squarely and respond to them.
21
Chapter 2
IS PREACHING EFFECTIVE?
OBJECTION: PREACHING IS OUTMODED AND INEFFECTIVE
In New Zealand today those inside and outside the church have lost
confidence in preaching, regarding it as dated and inefficient. In times
past people had their criticisms about sermons, complaining they were
dull, boring or unrelated to the point of the text. These criticisms,
however, were aimed at the kind of sermon preached; today we hear
criticism of the sermon as a means of communication.8 Objections to
preaching have escalated since the advent of radio, television, video
and computers. Before this century preaching was the only show in
town – not any more! Modern multi-media presentations offer high-
tech competition to preachers. Rather than go to church on a Sunday
evening people can stay home and watch the Sunday evening movie
on TV, hire a video or see a sports game on Sky. The box in the lounge
has replaced the pulpit in the church.9 Today it seems unlikely that one
person standing alone and speaking from an ancient book could
possibly impact this word-saturated, image-driven society.10
Another effect of modern technology has been to raise people’s
expectations about preaching. Anyone can turn on the TV at night and
watch a polished presentation of the news or see professional
entertainers introduced by smart and smooth hosts. Interspersed
through all of this are some brilliant advertisements with words crafted
to catch our attention and lodge in our memory. Your average
preacher is no match for such performances. Nor is he a match for the
famous preachers who have entered the world of show business, like
Benny Hinn, or Robert Schuller in his “Hour of Power” from the
Crystal Cathedral. Unfortunately too many of these tele-evangelists
and preachers are more concerned about holding an audience than
about preaching the message of the Bible without fear or favour. Yet
22 Feed My Sheep
such well funded, high class and practised performances set a standard
which is well nigh impossible for a local pastor to attain.
Not only has modern technology raised people’s expectations – it
has also lowered their concentration and their ability to assimilate
information. Television, with its rapidly changing images and frequent
commercial breaks, has not encouraged serious listening or mental
discipline. In his penetrating critique of television Neil Postman warns
of its powerful and destructive effect on people’s attention span and
ability to think. He notes that programmes are structured so that each
eight minute segment may stand as a complete event in itself.
Furthermore the average length of a shot on network television is only
3.5 seconds. The eye never rests. It always has something new to see.11
Postman explains the significance of the changes brought about by
television by demonstrating that we have shifted from the Age of
Exposition to the Age of Show Business. By “Exposition” he means a
culture that concentrates on words rather than images. As an
illustration of the Age of Exposition he cites the first of seven debates
between candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. This
debate took place on August 21, 1858, in Ottawa, Illinois. Douglas
opened and spoke for one hour; Lincoln was permitted an hour and a
half to respond; and then Douglas was given another half hour to rebut
Lincoln’s reply. This three hour debate was considerably shorter than
what these two men were used to.12 The length and complexity of
these debates, and others like them, was testimony to the ability of the
average American citizen to hear and absorb considerable amounts of
spoken information. Contrast this with the American presidential
debates that took place on television in the “Age of Show Business”.
Prior to the 1983 election the two presidential candidates confronted
each other in ‘debates’. Each candidate was given five minutes to
present his view on a certain question. His opponent was then given
one minute for a rebuttal. In the limitations of this time-frame it was
obviously impossible to present a sustained and reasoned argument
defending their policies. The outcome of a debate like this does not
depend on logic or truth but on style and impression. It is significant
Is Preaching Effective? 23
that in this election the people of America chose Ronald Reagan, the
well-known television actor, as their preferred president. This
television age raises some serious difficulties for the preacher. When
people have become so accustomed to brief segments how will they
listen to a sermon for twenty or thirty minutes? When viewers are
accustomed to constantly changing images on a flickering screen how
can they concentrate on one man speaking for any length of time in the
church?
Another effect of television has been to encourage us to evaluate
everything we see and hear for its entertainment value. Television
presents most of its information in an entertainment format. Perhaps
the primary reason for this is that programmers are aiming to attract
viewers and maintain their ratings. Programmes must hold the
attention of the viewer. Postman concedes that he has no objection to
television presenting material that is entertaining. In fact, one could
well argue that it is good to have our path in life brightened by light and
laughter. This, however, is not the issue. The problem is not that some
subject matter on television is entertaining but that all subject matter on
television is passed through the grid of entertainment. “No matter what
is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching assumption is
that it is there for our amusement and pleasure.”13 One clear example
of this is the news broadcasts. Our New Zealand TV stations are
competing for ratings and so the heat is on to attract viewers to tune
into the news. It is important, therefore, that the presenters be
presentable, the news interesting, the pictures rivetting, the style lively,
and, most important, that the viewers stayed tuned. What we see on
the six o’clock news is not merely information but has become
“infotainment”. The problem with this is that serious matters are
treated in a trivial manner, tragic events in the world are trivialised, and
events that ought to be a cause for distress are lost in an overall context
of humour and fun. In a report on the changes in news broadcasting in
America Time Magazine supported Postman’s analysis: “The public’s
attention is turning from substantive news to celebrity gossip, going
from the age of news to the age of entertainment.”14
24 Feed My Sheep
The significance of all this is not lost on church leaders. Many have
responded by steering the church in a similar direction. They are
driven by a laudable evangelistic motive in that they want to present
the Christian message to a lost society. If we are going to attract an
audience, they argue, we must present the service in an entertaining
manner. However, there is a great danger in this: Rather than ensuring
that the church service is driven by the truth of the message it is
tempting to allow the ‘audience’ to drive the service – the service is
‘seeker-friendly’ rather than God-centred. Soon the primary concern is
to find a message and a style that will attract listeners (‘seekers’) and
hold them. In this setting, style all too easily becomes more important
than substance: Truth gives way to impression.
This move away from words to a visual image is also seen in the
increasing use made of dance and drama in worship. One of the
strongest advocates for the use of drama in worship is Willow Creek
Community Church. Senior Pastor, Bill Hybels, defends the enormous
amounts of time, energy and money invested into drama and the arts
by saying, “This is the generation that grew up on television. You have
to present religion to them in a creative and visual way.”15 He is deeply
offended by accusations that they are entertaining people rather than
proclaiming the truth; “Who was the master composer? Who created
the arts? Whose idea was it to communicate the truth through a wide
variety of artistic genres? I think it was God. Then why has the church
narrowed its options and selected a talking head as its only form of
communicating the most important message on the planet?”16
Evangelism director Mittleberg explains that “drama is an important
thing and the way to kind of break through some barriers and
communicate a message.”17 These comments also reflect the influence
of the television age. Christian leaders are arguing that we need to
present the message of the Bible in a visual manner for a world that is
visually orientated. Drama, they maintain, is one of these visual
means.
Those working with children also question the value of preaching.
They believe that children have been “turned off by boring,
predictable, unchallenging, irrelevant, sophomoric attempts to teach

them God’s Word.”18 In the foreword to a book on creative Bible
teaching M. Scott Peck claims; “The best way to teach the Bible is not
through words, but through actions, through mentoring and
entertainment and an accepting community.”19
Finally, contemporary communicators and educators question the
whole concept of preaching telling us that mono-directional
communication is ineffective. Someone has described a sermon as a
“monotonous ministerial monologue”, or, in even more unflattering
terms, as “a monstrous monologue by a moron to mutes.”20 If we truly
want to change people’s attitudes and behaviour, we are told, we must
deal with people in small groups or one-to-one. In the current climate
of opinion preaching is “out-dated, old-fashioned, little more than a
rather quaint ecclesiastical anachronism,”21 a dinosaur in a computer
age.
All this does not encourage pastors to concentrate their efforts on
preaching. Living in this context, and with these criticisms of the
sermon, we ask, “Why bother to preach? Is it worth the time and effort?
Are there more productive ways of spending our time and more
effective means of communicating the gospel? In response, I believe
there is compelling biblical, historical and practical evidence in favour
of preaching. It is a biblical and therefore an effective means of
conveying the gospel message, even in this postmodern age. We need
to consider these arguments in favour of preaching.
RESPONSE 1: PREACHING IS COMMANDED
Just before his ascension Jesus commissioned his disciples, as

representatives of the church of all ages and places, with the task of
being his ambassadors; “...repentance and forgiveness of sins will be
preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are
witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:47). This is the message of the well
known words of the Great Commission; “All authority in heaven and
26 Feed My Sheep
on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all
nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have
commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end
of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20). The means by which the disciples
would “make disciples” would be the preaching of the good news
about Jesus.
In his instructions to Timothy the Apostle Paul notes that there are
elders of the church who are set aside especially for the work of
“preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17). Timothy himself was a
teaching elder. Paul, his father in the faith and companion in the
ministry, urged him to concentrate his attention on preaching. In his
first letter he lists various Christian doctrines and then says;
“Command and teach these things.... Until I come devote yourself to
the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1
Timothy 4:11,13). In his second letter he writes; “I give you this charge:
Preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2). “Charge” has the sense of
testifying under oath. Giving as much weight as he could to this
commission Paul reminded Timothy that he must conduct his ministry
“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living
and the dead” (2 Timothy 4:1). All preachers of the gospel would do
well to go over these words regularly as a reminder of the solemn
nature of our calling.
The Apostle amplified this command when he urged Timothy to
“be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and
encourage – with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim 4:2).
The word used here for “prepared” has the sense of urgency,
earnestness and insistence.22 Preaching is not a matter of indifference
but rather a matter of life and death – all of eternity is at stake in the
message we preach – so we must be sincere and fervent. When Paul
tells Timothy to “correct” he wants him to address God’s Word to the
minds of his congregation. At times God’s people will have doubts,
questions and misgivings. Part of the task of the preacher is to speak to
the minds of his listeners so as to correct their thinking and put them
back on track. The word “rebuke” addresses the Word of God to our
lives and our lifestyle. We may fall into sinful patterns of living and we
need to hear the rebuke of God’s Word through the preacher.
“Encouragement” comes when the Word of God is aimed at our
emotions. There will be times when we are low or discouraged – then
we need the encouragement and exhortation that comes from the
Scriptures. All this needs to be done with “great patience and careful
instruction”. One of the difficulties in the ministry is that we do not
always see instant results: Christian growth is often a slow process; we
may be tempted to become frustrated. So we are called to teach and
preach with patience, believing that God’s Word will bring life and
maturity.
Inherent in this command is the content of what is preached. The
word translated as “preach” here is the Greek word kerusso which
refers to the authoritative proclamation of a herald who was sent out by
the king. No preacher may make up his own message. Rather he must
pass on what he has received. This is why Paul wanted Timothy to
preach “the Word”. The Word of God is to be the content and subject
of preaching because it is the Word of the King. Preaching this message
of the King must be the main task of the ministry.
Kerusso describes not only the substance of his message but also
the method of the messenger. A herald would proclaim his message,
crying it out in a public place so it could be heard by the people. In this
sense, the Old Testament prophets were heralds (Jonah 1:2, 3:2-4,
Zephaniah 3:14, Zechariah 9:9) as were the New Testament apostles
– they were called to the verbal and public proclamation of the Word
of God. This is a solemn task which no man can take on himself – he
must be called to this by the Lord through the church. Before ordaining
a man as a minister of the Word the church must carefully examine his
gifts, intellectual ability, spiritual suitability and sense of call. Having
declared him a suitable candidate they can then ordain him as a pastor
of God’s people and a herald of the Word. The herald, therefore, is a
messenger appointed by Christ through the ordination of the church (1
Timothy 4:13-14, 2 Timothy 1:6) and “sent” (Romans 10:15) to
28 Feed My Sheep
proclaim the message of salvation in Christ.

The centrality of preaching in the early church is illustrated in that
the New Testament has thirty words to describe preaching.23 In
addition to kerusso three of these deserve mention. Euangelizomai is
used to describe the declaration of the gospel. It does not define a
method of communication but rather the content of the message as
being good news. This joyful news about Jesus was passed on in
personal conversation (Acts 8:4, 35) or was proclaimed in a public and
official manner (Acts 8:5). Didasko refers to teaching and is often used
to describe the public declaration of God’s truth. When used in this
way it has the same meaning as kerusso. A distinction may be made
between preaching and teaching, not in their content but in their
method. Preaching always has the element of proclamation whereas
teaching may not. All preaching must involve teaching but not all
teaching is preaching. Marturein describes part of the task of preaching
as bearing witness to what a person has seen and heard. The Apostles,
as eye-witnesses of Christ, were called to bear witness to what they had
seen (Luke 24:48, Acts 1:8). Preachers today are not eye-witnesses of
Christ but they are to bear witness to what the apostles proclaimed
about him and to what they have seen by faith (John 20:29).
The New Testament also explains how the ascended Lord Jesus
gave “pastors and teachers” to his church. These two words are linked
so as to suggest that these functions were combined in the one person;
this person was to pastor and teach God’s people to prepare them for
works of service (Ephesians 4:11-12). With his usual insight Calvin
notes that God, who could have perfected his people in a moment, has
rather chosen to have them mature and grow “solely under the
education of the church” through “the preaching of the heavenly
doctrine.” This was the pattern in the Old Testament. God did not give
the law alone, “but added priests as interpreters from whose lips the
people might ask its true meaning (cf. Malachi 2:7)”. From Ephesians
4:11-12 he concludes:
the church is built up solely by outward preaching.... Paul shows by these words
that this human ministry which God uses to govern the church is the chief sinew
by which believers are held together in one body. Whoever, therefore, either is
trying to abolish this order of which we speak and this kind of government, or
discounts it as not necessary, is striving for the undoing or rather the ruin and
destruction of the church. For neither the light and heat of the sun, nor food and
drink, are so necessary to nourish and sustain the present life as the apostolic
and pastoral office is necessary to preserve the church on earth.24
With these words Calvin explains the vital place of “pastors and
teachers” in the church of Christ.
Having examined the command to preach and some of the key
words used for preaching we should also note that already in the first
century preachers had their critics. The Apostle Paul had to deal with
people who ridiculed both the message and method of preaching (1
Corinthians 1:18-2:5). On the one hand there were the Jews who
wanted to see miraculous signs and for whom the message of the cross
was a stumbling block; they could not comprehend a crucified Messiah
– he was not the person they had awaited for 2000 years. On the other
hand there were the Greeks who prided themselves on their wisdom.
Their philosophical systems emphasised the spirit over against the
body; they could not believe in a god who not only became a man but
also died on a cross. To them the cross was utter foolishness. Yet this,
the apostle insists, was God’s chosen means of saving a lost humanity
(1 Corinthians 1:21-25).
Moreover, God chose to have this message of Christ crucified
communicated through preaching. This is why Paul rejected the
rhetorical techniques of Greek oratory; “When I came to you brothers,
I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to
you the testimony about God.... My message and my preaching were
not with wise or persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the
Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on man’s wisdom but
on God’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:1,4,5). By this he is not suggesting
that preachers should neglect the art of speaking; his point is that the
power is not in the technique, nor in the preacher, but rather in the
30 Feed My Sheep
Word of God as it is applied by the Holy Spirit. To the world preaching

may seem a “foolish” and ineffective method of communication. That
is how it seemed to unbelievers in the first century. However, despite
this appearance the Apostle points out “God was pleased through the
foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (1
Corinthians 1:21). Such preaching must still be the method of
communicating God’s truth.
In writing to the Christians in Rome the Apostle Paul states that the
message of salvation must be preached if people will come to faith.
“How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And
how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Romans
10:14). In his excellent commentary on Romans the Presbyterian
theologian John Murray notes that in this verse “the Apostle is thinking
of the institution which is the ordinary and most effectual means of
propagating the gospel, namely, the official preaching of the Word by
those appointed to this task.”25 This is not to deny that God may, and
does, use other means to bring people to faith. These include reading
the Bible personally and as a family, group Bible studies, conversation
with Christians, personal witnessing, lectures, Christian books, tracts
and pamphlets. Yet the Apostle Paul makes it clear that the
proclamation of the Word through preaching is the primary means
God will use to save the lost. This is the chief means he will use to apply
the work of redemption to his elect people. If this is so it must occupy
the central place in the life of the church.26 Our great need as preachers
today is to understand this New Testament teaching on the centrality
of preaching and to keep reminding ourselves of it, believing that this
is an important and effective work which the Lord will use in a powerful
way.
In emphasising the preaching of the Word we are clearly
distinguishing ourselves from the Roman Catholic church and its
emphasis on the sacraments as the primary means of grace. They
believe that the sacraments work ex opere operato, that is, they work
in and of themselves having a power of their own. This is in opposition
to the protestant belief that the sacraments only convey spiritual
benefit when they are accompanied by true faith. The practical effect
of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacraments is to downplay the
role of the Bible and preaching in the church. Many Roman Catholics
believe they have received all the grace they need simply by attending
mass – therefore they do not need to read the Bible or hear a sermon.
With the Reformers, however, we insist that the Word of God is the
chief means of grace, not the sacraments. There is, of course, no
conflict or rivalry between the ministry of the Word and the
sacraments: Both are “intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of
Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation.”27 The
message of the gospel is illustrated and confirmed through the ministry
of the sacraments. They are signs and seals of what God reveals and
communicates through his Word. However, administered on their
own, apart from the context of biblical preaching, the sacraments “can
become dumb ceremonies and magical rites, breeding grounds for
blasphemy and superstition.”28
This emphasis on preaching also stands in contrast to the mystics
who put the weight on inner spiritual experience and private
revelations received directly from God quite apart from the Bible.
Present day examples of this mysticism can be found in pentecostal
and charismatic circles. There it is not uncommon to hear a person or
a pastor claim; “God spoke to me”, or “God gave me this word of
prophecy”. The claim to direct and private revelations attacks the
sufficiency of the Bible as the Word of God and casts doubt on the
necessity of preaching. If a person can receive the Word of God
immediately and personally why should he bother to read the Bible or
hear a sermon? In his mind it is far better to hear God directly rather
than through the use of means. The Scriptures, however, oppose such
mysticism by emphasising the sufficiency of the Bible, assuring us that
it is profitable for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Paul warned the
Christians in Colosse against the false teachers who promoted a first
century mysticism: “Such a person goes into great detail about what he
32 Feed My Sheep
has seen and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions” (Cols
2:18). Examples of this abound in the church today. In the face of
widespread mysticism in the twentieth century we must hold to the
biblical emphasis on the Word of God, written and preached, as it
points us to the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, “in whom are
hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3).
It is by proclaiming him “that we may present everyone perfect in
Christ”, being “encouraged in heart and united in love” and having
“the full riches of complete understanding” (Colossians 1:28, 2:2).
Underlying all powerful and effective preaching is the foundation of
a biblical theology of preaching. We who preach must believe that the
proclamation of the Word of God has the power to save the lost
bringing them from darkness to light, from error to truth, from bondage
to freedom. Every sermon may be seen as a struggle for souls. Through
preaching the Lord will convert those he has chosen for salvation
(Ephesians 1:4) opening their hearts to respond to the gospel message
(Acts 16:14). God has promised that his Word will be powerful and
effective;
It will not return to me empty,

but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)
The writer to the Hebrews made the same point when he wrote, “The
Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged
sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and
marrow” (Hebrews 4:12). To the Church at Rome Paul wrote that the
gospel “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who
believes” (Romans 1:16). He could assure the Christians in
Thessalonica that God had chosen them, “Because our gospel came to
you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit
and with deep conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:5). All these passages
testify to the power of the Word of God both written and preached. We
need to believe that our preaching of this Word will be powerful
through God’s Spirit.

This does not mean that the preaching of the gospel will always
bring about salvation in those who hear it. For some the gospel is “the
fragrance of life” while for others it is “the smell of death”; the former
will respond and be saved while the latter will reject the message and
perish (1 Corinthians 2:14-17). Those who do not respond cannot
blame the gospel; this same gospel brings light and life to some while
others close their minds and harden their hearts. Either way the
preaching of God’s Word will penetrate souls and judge “the thoughts
and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12-13).
God’s chosen method of communicating his truth is not only
commanded but there are also many biblical and historical examples
of how preaching was powerful and effective. It will be instructive and
encouraging to note some of these.
Examples of Preaching in the Scriptures
The prophets of the Old Testament were, first and foremost, forceful
preachers of God’s truth. Men such as Elijah and Elisha, Isaiah and
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel and Daniel fearlessly proclaimed God’s Word in
the city and country, before nations and kings. They preached with the
conviction that they were bringing the Word of God to his people
(Hosea 4:1, Joel 1:1); they knew they had to proclaim it no matter what
it cost them (Jeremiah 1:7-8, 17-19). In their role as prophets they
pointed forward to a greater prophet who was going to come. The
Lord promised this person through Moses: “I will raise up for them a
prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his
mouth, and he will tell them everything I command them”
(Deuteronomy 18:18). These words were fulfilled in the prophetic
ministry of the Lord Jesus.
Jesus opened his ministry on earth in the synagogue at Nazareth by
quoting the words of Isaiah, one of the great Old Testament prophets;
“The Spirit of the sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has
34 Feed My Sheep
anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18f, Isaiah

61:1-3). From that time on Jesus made preaching the primary work of
his ministry (Matthew 4:17). He preached in the synagogues, from
Peter’s fishing boat, on a mountainside and to his disciples as they
walked from town to town. His preaching was popular with the
common people and even his critics had to admit; “No one ever spoke
the way this man does.” (John 7:46).
Someone might object that Jesus also performed many miracles.
Yet Jesus urged those who heard him to concentrate on his words
rather than his deeds. He warned the crowd of 5000 he had fed saying;
“Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal
life, which the Son of Man will give you” (John 6:27). He rebuked the
Jews for their constant hankering after signs, directing them instead to
the preached Word; “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a
miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah....
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgement with this
generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of
Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here” (Luke 11:29,32).
After he had healed many in Capernaum the crowds came searching
for him. “Simon and his companions went to look for him, and when
they found him, they exclaimed; ‘Everyone is looking for you!’ Jesus
replied, ‘Let us go somewhere else – to the nearby villages – so I can
preach there also. That is why I have come’” (Mark 1:35-39). Matthew
summarises the ministry of Jesus with these words: “Jesus went
through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues,
preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease
and sickness” (Matthew 9:35). John explains that Jesus’ miracles were
“signs” proving he was the person he claimed to be, confirming his
words, and calling people to “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God” (John 20:30-31). His miracles were secondary; his primary
work was preaching the gospel of the kingdom.
Jesus wanted his disciples to pursue this same task. While still with
them “he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the
sick” (Luke 9:2). These miracles had the same role in the ministry of the
disciples as they did in the ministry of their Lord – they were signs
confirming the message preached. As he was about to leave them
Jesus charged them to be witnesses of him. His last great commission
to His Church was to evangelise the world. The apostles were to make
disciples of all nations by preaching the good news to all nations (cf.
Matthew 28:18 and Luke 24:47). This was the Lord’s strategy for His
Church in communicating the message to the world. “From the very
beginning the Church was a preaching church.”29
We see this emphasis on preaching throughout the book of Acts. In
the first sermon of the New Testament church Peter quoted from the
Old Testament to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah long
awaited by Israel. He confronted the Jews with their sin of crucifying
Jesus Christ. In response to that powerful sermon three thousand
people were added to the church that day. Many years later the
Apostle Peter explained that these New Testament believers had “been
born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the
living and enduring Word of God.... And this is the Word that was
preached to you” (1 Peter 1:23,25). When the Jewish authorities
arrested Peter and John and warned them against speaking or
preaching in the name of Jesus they responded; “We cannot help
speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). They were
released but later were arrested again and once more were forbidden
to preach, but continued on; “Day after day, in the temple courts and
from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the
good news that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 5:42).
Nor did the Apostles want to be distracted from this task. In the early
days of the church they outlined their priorities when they gathered all
the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect
the ministry of the Word of God in order to wait on tables.” They
advised the church to appoint seven men to concentrate on a ministry
to the poor and widows so they could give their attention “to prayer
and the ministry of the Word” (Acts 6:4). Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his
superb book Preaching and Preachers, comments: “Now there the
priorities are laid down once and for ever. This is the primary task of the
36 Feed My Sheep
Church, the primary task of the leaders of the Church, the people who
are set in this position of authority; and we must not allow anything to
deflect us from this, however good the cause, however great the
need.”30
Significant preachers of the early church include Stephen who spoke
in such a way that those arguing with him “could not stand up against his
wisdom or the Spirit by which he spoke” (Acts 6:10) and Philip who “went
down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there” (Acts 8:4). Yet
the most influential preacher of this period was the Apostle Paul. We have
already considered his exhortations to Timothy – here we note that he
practised what he preached. Writing to the Corinthians he outlined the
priority of his ministry; “Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach
the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17). This was an urgent obligation; “Yet
when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach.
Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:16). The
Apostle was utterly convinced that God had set him apart from birth and
called him to preach Christ to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16). He
explained this to the Christians in Ephesus; “Although I am less than the
least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: To preach to the
Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ...” (Ephesians 3:8). To the
Christians in Rome he could write; “I am so eager to preach the gospel
also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because
it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes”
(Romans 1:15-16). It was this conviction that drove him in his ministry,
that took him around the Mediterranean and through Asia Minor, that
motivated him to preach whenever and wherever he could – in
synagogues, market places and a lecture hall; in private homes, on the
steps of Roman barracks and at the Areopagus in Athens. “Preaching the
gospel was, for Paul, not only an inescapable duty. It was a divine
obligation. It was the raison d’etre of his ministry, the thing he was born
to do in the purpose of God.”31
Examples of preaching in church history
Throughout church history the Holy Spirit has used powerful

preaching to fan the flames of revival and to bring about times of
reform in the church, both of which were desperately needed at many
points. The authoritative preaching of the apostles was imitated in the
following centuries by powerful preachers such as Ambrose, St.
Augustine and John Chrysostom who all shared the Apostle’s
confidence in the power of preaching.
The most well-known and influential of these three men was
Augustine who lived in the fourth century after Christianity had been
made the official religion of the Roman Empire. He was converted to
the Christian faith through the ministry of Ambrose who was the
Bishop of Milan at that time. At first Augustine listened to his preaching
from a professional point of view to learn something from his
eloquence. But after a time he was attracted to the truth of what he
heard. Augustine said of Ambrose; “I was brought by God to him in
order that I should be brought by him to God.”32 He was baptised by
the bishop in 387 AD at the age of thirty three. Many have ranked his
conversion second to that of the Apostle Paul in its significance for the
influence of Christianity. He became the Bishop of Hippo in North
Africa and laboured in that city for 38 years. The teenagers who heard
him in the fourth century were still listening to him when they were
grandparents.
Most well known for his monumental writings Augustine was also a
great preacher. As a professor of rhetoric he had been a brilliant
teacher in the art of communicating. As Bishop of Hippo he devoted
himself to communicating God’s Word through preaching.
Throughout his life he was engaged in an intensive study of the
Scriptures that gave him a phenomenal knowledge of their content.
That knowledge came through in his preaching. His sermons have
been described as “biblical rambles”: Biblical because they were full of
the Bible; rambles because in them he wandered all over the
Scriptures, quoting from memory many different passages. In a day
38 Feed My Sheep
and age where there were few Bibles and where many could not read
his sermons gave people a good knowledge of the Scriptures. His work
as a pastor and judge in the civil courts gave him a good knowledge of
his people and a vast store of anecdotes and illustrations that held the
attention of his audience. His preaching did not just address the mind
but also pulled at the emotions and issued a challenge to the will. He
did not just want to convey information; he wanted to proclaim God’s
truth and to persuade people to action. In preaching, he said, “One
loving heart sets another on fire.”33 While the major weakness of his
preaching was his allegorical approach34 his great strength was his
desire to preach Christ so that his people might know the Lord. “Why
do I preach? Why do I sit here on the cathedra?35 What do I live for?
For this one thing alone, that we may one day live with Christ! This is
my honour, my fame, this is my joy and my treasured possession!”36
With the death of the early great theologians and preachers, and
the political acceptance of the church in the Holy Roman Empire,
preaching began to decline. During the centuries that followed the
church became increasingly worldly and political while interest in the
Scriptures and in preaching waned. There were some great
exceptions, most notably the Waldensians in the twelfth century and,
in the next century, two orders of preaching friars, the Dominicans and
the Franciscans. Yet these were faint stars in the dark night sky of
biblical ignorance. For much of the Middle Ages the Bible was an
unknown book, even to the clergy, and sound preaching was not
heard in the churches. Many of the clergy were uneducated and ill-
equipped to teach their people. The Bible was only available in the
Latin translation known as the Vulgate and so was inaccessible to the
vast majority of the common people. Those who could read were not
given access to the Bible. Only handwritten were available and these
were chained to the pulpits in the churches.37
A growing number in the church became increasingly concerned
about the ignorance and superstition that was widespread in the
church and made efforts to bring about reform. One of these was a
great English preacher by the name of John Wycliffe (1320-1384 AD).
He preached the Bible and aimed to help his hearers understand its
literal meaning. Not only did he preach himself but he also trained
evangelical men from Oxford University as preachers of the gospel. He
sent them out in pairs carrying only their staff and their Bible. These
‘Lollards’ or ‘mutterers’, as they became scornfully known, were sent
out on their mission with these words of Wycliffe; “To the people the
Gospel must be preached as God commands. The Truth must be
proclaimed to them even though they receive it unwillingly. Not
comedies or tragedies, not fables or droll stories, but simply and solely
the law of the Lord as Christ and the Apostles delivered it: For in the
law, that is the gospel, is hidden the life which is able to quicken the
church.” Wycliffe believed in the value of preaching; “The highest
service to which man may attain on earth, is to preach the Word of
God.... The church is honoured most by the preaching of God’s
Word.”38
John Hus, another fore-runner of the Reformation, was also a
vigorous preacher. Twice a Sunday and often during the week he
preached to a capacity crowd in his large church in Prague. Hus
preached from the Scriptures and subjected the practices of the church
to the searching light of the Word of God. As a result he condemned
the corruption and heresy of the pope and clergy. For his efforts he was
‘tried’, condemned as a heretic and burnt at the stake.
Those who were martyred did not give their lives in vain for the
sixteenth century finally saw a great movement known as the
Reformation. The reformers brought the church back to the Bible as
the sole authority for faith and life initiating dramatic changes in
theology and worship. As in all periods of reform and revival in the
church the Reformation was also a time of stirring preaching. It was the
preaching of the Bible that carried the Reformation forward. Certainly
the written Word, reproduced on the recently invented printing
presses, greatly aided the progress of reform, but it was the preaching
of the Word that warmed cold hearts and gave clarity to confused
minds. Martin Luther himself was a lively and gifted preacher. John
Calvin, although totally different in temperament and character,
40 Feed My Sheep
preached systematically through the Scriptures to thousands in the city

of Geneva bringing about significant and lasting changes to the
spiritual and moral life of its citizens. Other great preachers of the
Reformation included Hugh Latimer in England, Ulrich Zwingli in
Switzerland, and the fiery Scottish preacher, John Knox.
Reformational preaching was continued in England by the Puritans
who sought to reform the church beyond what parliament had
established in the Anglican church settlement. Their opponents gave
them this name to deride their attempts to purify the church. Most of
the Puritans pressed for these reforms from within the Church of
England but a small group withdrew completely from the Anglican
Church, beginning the English Independent or Congregationalist
movement. The Puritan era lasted for about a hundred years,
beginning around 1559 and ending with the Act of Uniformity in 1662.
Subsequent years have given the Puritans a bad press. Yet history has
not been fair to these Christians who sought to apply the Word of God
with rigour to every area of their lives – to their marriages, homes,
church and society. They combined careful discipline with fervent
devotion and sought to understand the doctrine of the Bible well so as
to live it out in their lives.39
This Puritan era was not only a time of careful godliness, it was also
a time of powerful and effective preaching – the former being largely a
result of the latter.40 Puritan preachers were keen to apply the Word of
God to the daily lives of their people.
...the Puritans brought into their preaching both the learning of the study and
the practicability of the market place. Their sermons savoured of close
meditation in the closet and no less close observation in the street. Their
preaching was lively because it dealt with life as it was.... And thus it was that
by the even quality of its matter, by the forceful sincerity and spiritual power of
its utterance, by the soundness of its doctrine and the thoroughness of its
practical application the Puritan pulpit produced the golden age of evangelical
preaching in England.41
Their ability in preaching arose out of their convictions that this was the
primary work of the minister, the climax of the worship service, and the
main means God used, through His Spirit, to bring people to salvation
and faith. Robert Traill reflected the Puritan view on this matter when
he preached a sermon entitled, By what means may ministers best win
souls? He said, “The principal work of a minister is preaching; the
principal benefit people have by them is to hear the Lord’s Word from
them.... Art thou a minister? Thou must be a preacher. An unpreaching
minister is a sort of contradiction.”42 In keeping with this view of
preaching they had a high view of the office of preacher and teacher.
Richard Sibbes illustrates this high regard; “It is the gift of gifts, this
ordinance of preaching. God esteems it so, Christ esteems it so, and so
we should esteem it.”43
This Puritan era saw a consistent and high standard of preaching.
These preachers devoted themselves to a study of the Scriptures and
of human life with a diligence that has not been seen since then. In our
own day and age any one of them would have gained note as an
outstanding preacher. One of the best examples from this period is
Richard Baxter who, in the assessment of J. I. Packer, was “the most
outstanding pastor, evangelist and writer on practical and devotional
themes that Puritanism produced.”44 Baxter ministered at
Kidderminster from 1641 to 1660, with a five year break during the
Civil War. Most of the 2,000 adults in the town were converted under
his ministry. Before he arrived “they had hardly ever had any lively
serious preaching among them” and “there was about one Family in
a Street that worshipped God and called on his name”. But his ministry
of regular preaching and systematic catechising was greatly blessed by
the Lord so that by the time he left “there were some streets where there
was not past one Family in the side of the Street that did not do so.”45
His work, The Reformed Pastor, is regarded as one of the classic
exhortations to ministers to apply themselves to the work of preaching
and catechising. In it Baxter describes how he went about the work of
teaching his people. This, to him, was the minister’s main task: To be
exercised both in the public preaching of the Word and in private
instruction.
42 Feed My Sheep
One of the most enduring legacies of the Puritans for theology and
preaching was the work done by the Westminster Assembly. This
assembly of 121 clergymen and 30 laymen was called together by the
Parliament in 1643. The vast majority of those who attended the
session were Puritans who favoured a presbyterian system of church
government. In addition to the Westminster Confession, the main
document produced by the assembly, they also prepared a Larger
Catechism to be used for pulpit exposition and a Shorter Catechism for
teaching children. Their views on church order and worship were
expressed in a Directory of Worship which contains one of the most
succinct and helpful statements on preaching you will find (see
Appendix). The Puritans were spiritual giants in theology and practice,
preaching and pastoral work. Today we have much to learn from their
example and would do well to imitate their diligence and devotion.
The Puritan era came to an end with the Restoration of Charles II to
the English throne in 1660 and the subsequent Act of Uniformity in
1662 which prescribed the use of a newly revised Prayer Book. In one
day about 2000 Presbyterian and Congregational Puritans who
refused to use the Prayer Book were driven from their pulpits and
parishes and reduced to poverty. Their biblical and practical preaching
was replaced in the Church of England by dry and cold talks on
morality. Clergy in the Church of England were often lazy in their lives
and heretical in their doctrine. Many of them were more interested in
their social standing and income than the spiritual and moral well-
being of their parishioners. As a result England went into a sad decline
spiritually and morally. By the opening decades of the eighteenth
century life in England was in a deplorable state. Widespread unbelief
went hand in hand with drunkenness, immorality and brutality.
All this began to change in the 1740’s. Again the Lord used
preaching to bring about a great revival of faith and godliness. Certain
men were convinced that if people’s lives were to be changed they had
to preach the great truths of the gospel. When they were not permitted
to preach in the churches they went out into the open air where
thousands came to listen to them preach the doctrines of the Bible. Rev
J. C. Ryle, a forthright Anglican Bishop of the nineteenth century,

wrote of these remarkable events and the Biblical truth they preached:
“These were the doctrines by which they turned England upside down,
made ploughmen and colliers weep till their dirty faces were seamed
with tears, arrested the attention of peers [Lords] and philosophers,
stormed the strongholds of Satan, plucked thousands like brands from
the burning, and altered the character of the age.”46 The leading figures
in this great revival of preaching and the Christian faith were George
Whitefield and John Wesley, both of whom were very able preachers.
Whitefield was Calvinistic in his doctrine and a dramatic and powerful
preacher, being blessed with a voice that could be heard far and wide
by thousands. Wesley was Arminian in doctrine but was earnest,
practical and fearless in his preaching.47 Through their preaching in
England God brought about a great change known as the Methodist
revival.
A similar revival occurred in North America, known as the Great
Awakening. The most prominent preacher of this movement was
Jonathan Edwards. Edwards shared the same Calvinistic convictions
as Whitefield but was very different in his style of preaching. While
Whitefield’s preaching was expressive and emotional Edwards was far
more reserved in the use of his voice and gestures. He preferred to
write out his sermons in full or, later in his ministry, in a detailed
outline, and would follow his script closely when preaching. Yet he
preached with a desperate passion and fervency of spirit. He was
absolutely convinced that he was preaching the Word of God and that
God had placed him in a position of spiritual authority over those in his
church.48 Edwards, as a descendant of the Puritans, regarded
preaching as the essential task of the ministry: “The work and business
of ministers of the gospel is as it were that of servants, to wash and
cleanse the souls of men; for this is done by the preaching of the Word,
which is their main business: Ephesians 5:25 – ‘That he might sanctify
and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.’”49 In his farewell
sermon to his Northampton congregation, at the end of twenty three
years of ministry, he described how he had given himself to this task:
44 Feed My Sheep
I have spent the prime of my life and strength in labours for your eternal
welfare. You are my witnesses that what strength I have had, I have not
neglected in idleness, nor laid out in prosecuting worldly schemes, and
managing temporal affairs, for the advancement of my outward estate and
aggrandising myself and my family; but have given myself to the work of the
ministry, labouring in it night and day, rising early, and applying myself to this
great business to which Christ has appointed me...50
The Puritan legacy continued to influence preaching in America into

the early nineteenth century. Alexis de Tocqueville, the French
sociologist and historian, writing about America in 1831, came to this
conclusion;
I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbours
and ample rivers and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of
America in her fertile fields and boundless forests, and it was not there. I sought
for the greatness and genius of America in her public school system and her
institutions of learning and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches
of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness, did I understand the
secret of her genius and her power.”51
This tradition of biblical preaching was continued on in England in the

nineteenth century by the “Prince of Preachers”, Charles Haddon
Spurgeon, the Baptist minister who preached at New Park Street
(1854-1859) and then in the Metropolitan Tabernacle (1861-1891).
Throughout these years he preached to a congregation of thousands.
Every week on Monday he would revise one of his sermons which
would be available in print on the Thursday. He began this practice in
1855 and continued it every week until his death in 1892. Demand for
these printed sermons increased steadily throughout his lifetime and
they were sold throughout England, Scotland, Wales and America, as
well as being translated into many other languages. Each year the fifty-
two sermons published during the preceding year were reprinted and
bound together as a single volume, The New Park Street Pulpit that
later became The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit.52
An outstanding example of biblical expository preaching in the

twentieth century is found in the ministry of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a
Welshman, who left a promising medical career to preach the gospel.
Early in his ministry he was strongly influenced by the writings of the
American Presbyterian theologian B. B. Warfield and by the writings of
the Puritans and became thoroughly Calvinistic in his theological
convictions. After serving a church in Wales he was invited to succeed
Campbell Morgan at Westminster Chapel in London, taking sole
charge in 1943. This was the beginning of a ministry that has had an
influence throughout the world. He was involved in the establishment
of Banner of Truth, a publishing house committed to the publication of
Reformed and Puritan works of the past and present. As with
Spurgeon, many of Lloyd-Jones’s sermons were collected into books,
most notably his expository sermons on Ephesians, Romans and the
Sermon on the Mount. He retired in 1968 after spending forty-one
years in the preaching ministry, thirty of which were spent in
Westminster Chapel. His convictions about preaching are expressed in
his sermons but also in his book Preaching and Preachers which has
continued to be a standard work in many seminaries.
This brief survey of some of the outstanding examples of preaching
in the Old and New Testament times and in the history of the church
reinforces the point that preaching is not only commanded by the Lord
but has also been powerfully used by God to bring about reform and
revival. These examples encourage us today as we seek to “preach the
Word” in our own context and as we face the critics of this biblical
method. The biblical and historical background just given answers
some of the primary objections raised against preaching. Others listed
earlier still remain, particularly those relating to the visual character of
our age. We need to consider these.
46 Feed My Sheep
RESPONSE 2: PREACHING IS EFFECTIVE
When dealing with objections to preaching it is important that we

argue the case on principles rather than pragmatics. Most of the
objections listed earlier were pragmatic rather than principial and have
already been answered in the biblical and historical data presented.
We should also note that this low regard for the spoken word is of
recent origin. For most of human history verbal communication was
the main means of learning, persuasion and debate. Rhetoricians in
ancient Greece and Rome spent much time and energy instructing
students in the art of public oratory. The church too trained her
ministers in the skill of communicating to people through the spoken
word. Some were more able than others and there were times that the
church put a higher value on preaching than at other times. But
preaching was a mainstream form of communication; it wasn’t
peculiar, odd or different, but normal, usual and acceptable. It is only
in more recent times that the value of preaching has been widely
questioned.
Yet every day much more information is communicated by plain
speech than in any other way. An old proverb states the importance of
the visual: ‘I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand.’ There
is truth in this, but we should not underestimate the power of what we
hear. Despite this visual age there is still an enormous number of words
being written, read and spoken. Even much of what happens on
television is presented by a person or persons speaking to others.
Think of all the television talk shows as one example and the news
broadcasts as another. Many business organisations and teaching
institutions still use the spoken word when addressing large audiences.
The spoken medium is still well used.
Preaching is also more personal than the electronic television
medium; the people speaking through those flickering images seem
close at hand but they are remote, inaccessible and unapproachable.
By contrast the preacher is ‘live’, a flesh and blood person, someone
‘real’. Moreover he is accessible and approachable – you can shake his
hand after the service, ask him questions and converse with him. Not
only can the listener have contact with the preacher but there is also the
opportunity to have fellowship with the rest of the congregation, an
opportunity not afforded by a person sitting at home alone in their
living room.
Even Willow Creek, with all its emphasis on drama, music,
programming, lighting and image, recognises the central importance
of preaching. In a special message to senior pastors at Willow Creek’s
leadership conference Pastor Bill Hybels had this to say: “Now I don’t
like to say this around the staff; I don’t like to say this, you know,
around the church or even in public. But in closed-door sessions with
senior pastors I like to say – it would be difficult for you to overestimate
the importance of great preaching. It’s not much of an exaggeration to
say it’s about 85 percent of the game.”53 Even with the thousands of
hours that are poured into all the other aspects of Willow Creek’s
ministry Hybels recognises the central role of what is preached.
A further result of the electronic media is the increased expectation
of listeners for a stylish performance. We have to admit that it is difficult
for the pastor of a local congregation to achieve the standards of
presentation seen by the professionals on television. However, we
should not use this as an excuse to be lazy in preparation or sloppy in
presentation. We all have different gifts and abilities but the Lord
expects us to make the best possible use of the talents he has given us.
The words of the Apostle Paul encourage us to apply ourselves to
preaching with the gifts God has given: “We have different gifts,
according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him
use it in proportion to his faith... if it is teaching let him teach.” (Romans
12:6-7).
As we prepare and preach we need reminding that the power of
preaching does not lie in our slick technique but in the power of the
Holy Spirit applying the Word of God to people’s hearts and minds.
This was a recurring theme in the prophets of the Old Testament. God
spoke through Zechariah; “‘Not by might nor by power, but by my
Spirit,’ says the Lord almighty.” (Zechariah 4:6). Ezekiel was given a
48 Feed My Sheep
dramatic illustration of the power of God’s Spirit when he saw a valley

of dry bones come to life as he preached to them! (Ezekiel 37). In the
New Testament the Apostle Paul was aware that we who are preachers
have this treasure of the gospel in jars of clay “to show that this all-
surpassing power is from God and not from us”. (2 Corinthians 4:7).
We may not have the abilities of some of the television stars but having
the power of the Holy Spirit we have all we need.
What of the objection that people today cannot concentrate – that
their attention span is limited. The Puritan preachers of the 1600s
generally preached for one hour; today many preachers hesitate to
speak for more than fifteen minutes. It is true that we cannot ignore the
capacity of the listener to absorb the message. Yet as preachers we
ought to be encouraging and training our congregations to
concentrate harder and to listen longer. Stories and illustrations can
help; they provide a ‘breathing space’ and enable people to listen more
attentively for an extended time. Illustrations are to a sermon what
windows are to a building – they let in light and air, so aiding
concentration. Providing an outline of the sermon can also help
people listen – perhaps on an overhead projector, or written up on a
whiteboard, or printed in the church newsletter – this can help people
see where the sermon is going. Taking notes can also help the listener
to concentrate. As preachers we should do all we can to assist the
congregation to apply their minds and pay close attention to the Word
of the Lord.
The visual character of this age has encouraged a growing move to
include drama in worship. What are we to make of this? This debate
about drama needs to be seen against the background of the question,
“What is permitted in worship?” In answer to this Roman Catholics felt
free to add many ceremonies and rituals in worship; Lutherans did not
allow anything into worship that was forbidden in Scripture; Anglicans
did not allow anything into worship that was inconsistent with
Scripture; Reformed churches did not allow anything into worship that
was not commanded in Scripture.54 The Reformed position is
summarised in the Westminster Confession of Faith; “But the
acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself,

and so limited by his own revealed will, that He may not be
worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the
suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other
way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.”55 Most Reformed people
have understood this ‘regulative principle of worship’ to exclude the
use of drama in the worship service.
A drama may be defined as “a play”; as “a work to be performed
by actors”; or as “works intended for the stage.”56 Following this
definition there is a clear difference between a play and a sermon: A
play is a performance while a sermon is a form of verbal
communication; in a play an actor represents another person while in
the sermon the preacher speaks for God. A play can only attempt to
illustrate the truth while a sermon can state the truth plainly. Even
advocates of drama concede the difficulty of communicating a
message through a play acknowledging that it is best used to connect
people with a problem rather than provide a solution. Preaching,
however, is not about raising problems and questions but about
presenting solutions and answers. In a recent book on public worship,
Dr. John Frame, Professor of Philosophy at Westminster Seminary,
himself sympathetic to the use of drama, acknowledges its limitations:
In my experience, dramas are most effective in worship when they pose a

question to which the sermon presents a Scriptural answer.... I am not an
advocate of the use of drama. In my view there are many considerations
arguing that the Word is usually presented better through the traditional
monologue than through drama. Dramas are hard to write, plan and rehearse.
When done poorly they are a distraction, and when done well (usually by
professional leadership), the cost exceeds the value of the performance. And
perhaps especially now, amid all the technological and media clutter, it can be
refreshing and powerful to receive a straightforward “live” message from one
man entrusted with the Word of God, speaking from the heart as “a dying man
to dying men.” The simplicity of such an address can have, as our puritan
forefathers emphasised, a great spiritual power.57
50 Feed My Sheep
Most of the advocates for drama base their arguments on the

dramatic elements in the Scriptures. It is true that some of the prophets
occasionally used symbols to reinforce their message58 but these
actions were incidental to their primary calling to be preachers. We
would do well to be cautious about building a strong case for drama on
the basis of these few and scattered incidents of prophetic symbolism.59
Turning to the New Testament others argue for drama on the basis
of the dialogue style of the preaching of Jesus and the Apostle Paul.
They also note that the parables of Jesus were stories. Yet to allow
drama in worship on this basis is to broaden the definition of drama
considerably. There is quite a difference between a preacher telling a
story and a group of people acting it out. In a sermon a preacher is
verbally proclaiming God’s truth, in drama people are acting out a
scene. Drama cannot state propositional truth; the best it can do is
illustrate the truth. Why use an inferior method when a superior
method is available? It is significant that the Apostle Paul did not draw
on this medium for the presentation of the gospel message, especially
considering that elaborate drama festivals were a popular part of the
Greek and Roman culture and well known to him. Nowhere do we see
him imitating this method nor do we hear him advocating that others
use it. He wanted to proclaim the gospel free from any associations
with the pagan culture around him using a method that the prophets
of the Old Testament had used for centuries. Far from using any song
and dance routines the Apostle Paul proclaimed the Word of God and,
as we have seen, called others to do the same.
Another weakness of drama is that it is aimed at the emotions
whereas preaching addresses the truth of God to the mind. Willow
Creek recognises this distinction and readily admits that their musical
and dramatic programming are aimed at the language of unchurched
Harry – that is, his emotions. They maintain that experience, not
evidence, is the “mode of discovery” for ‘Unchurched Harry’.60 Yet the
Scriptures constantly emphasise that the truth of God’s Word must
inform and transform the minds of those who hear. Pritchard, who
conducted a thorough doctoral study of Willow Creek, points out that
the use of drama dilutes the message of the gospel: “Creekers often use
visual stimulation as a substitute for thought and do not value verbal
precision. Making Christianity more visual tends to make it less verbal.
Simplicity is valued and conceptual complexity is devalued.”61 At its
very best drama is preparatory to the preaching of the Word. At worst
it is distracting, or manipulative, or both. In a study of the biblical and
historical data on dance and drama in worship Brian Edwards
concludes:
The arts have never been widely used when the church has been at its liveliest.
For nine hundred years the gospel percolated throughout Britain before
anyone thought of pepping up the church services with drama! The method
most widely used by man for communicating truth is plain speech. From the
pulpit, the lecture hall, the classroom, the garden fence or the BBC studio, plain
speech is the easiest, most natural and most effective method of
communicating.62
The bottom line of the case for preaching is that the Lord commands
us to preach and He regards the preached Word as the primary means
of communicating the gospel to His people and to a lost and searching
world. Moreover, this is the method that has been practised by the
church down through the ages and has been powerful and effective in
bringing reformation to the church and revival in society. Even the
modern technology available to us and the emphasis on the visual in
today’s world should not dissuade us from preaching. It remains the
obligation of every man called to the ministry to preach “the
unsearchable riches of Christ” and to do this with confidence, clarity
and conviction.
52 Feed My Sheep
Chapter 3
IS PREACHING
AUTHORITATIVE?
OBJECTION: PREACHING HAS NO AUTHORITY
People have not only questioned the effectiveness of preaching in our

modern multi-media society but they have also questioned the
authority of preaching. At the root of this critique is a lack of confidence
in the Scriptures. There have always been those who have questioned
the truth of the Bible but in the last three centuries the Scriptures have
come under heavy fire from deism, rationalism and liberalism. As a
result of these devastating movements in the history of ideas “God so
shrank in men’s minds that the miraculous realities of regeneration and
inspiration became incredible to them.”63 Modern liberalism has
undermined confidence in the authority of God’s Word.
People don’t respect the Bible
Most people do not believe that the Bible is truly the Word of God or
that it speaks to them with any authority. Even many theologians and
preachers do not believe that the Scriptures are inerrant and
trustworthy. Rather than boldly proclaiming the Word of truth they
timidly share their doubts about the Bible, especially when it comes to
some of the central truths about the Lord Jesus – his virgin birth,
miracles and resurrection. Early in 1998 Dr James Veitch, senior
religious studies lecturer at Victoria University and a Presbyterian
minister, asserted that more than 80 per cent of the stories about Jesus
Christ are not based on fact. He claimed the backing of many modern
New Testament scholars in support of his belief that the resurrection of
Jesus should not be understood in a bodily sense. “We’re discovering
Is Preaching Authoritative? 53
the metaphorical value of much of the story telling about Jesus in the
gospels,” he said.64 These ideas, of course, have been around for some
time. What is tragic is that they are being promoted by theologians and
preachers in the church. It is little wonder that congregations do not
trust the message they hear from pulpits and that there has been a loss
of confidence in preaching. As the Apostle Paul put it; “...if Christ has
not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those
also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have
hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Cor 15:17-
19). Responding to the Liberal ‘gospel’ Frank Colquhoun expresses
himself forcefully but truly when he writes;
It is tragic when men who profess to be the ministers of the gospel appear to be
more sure of what they do not believe than of what they do. They are
convinced of their doubts; they are doubtful of their convictions. But the final
tragedy is that instead of keeping their miserable doubts to themselves they
drag them into the pulpit and give them an airing in almost every sermon. There
is no apostolic ‘We know!’ about their preaching but only a hesitant ‘We
venture to suggest’.65
Such hesitancy is the natural consequence of a loss of respect for the

Scriptures.
A lack of confidence in the authority of God’s Word has contributed
to a change of approach in preaching. Rather than preaching the Bible
many pastors believe they should focus on human needs and hurts.
One church advertised the public meetings of a visiting minister with a
healing ministry: “SICK of being SICK. Fed up with feeling LONELY
and HURT. This is the GOOD NEWS! JESUS is still in the healing
business.” An advertisement such as this addresses a person’s physical
and emotional hurts rather than their spiritual need. Preaching that
follows this line will be more anthropocentric than theocentric.
Traditionally a preacher may have begun with the human situation to
gain the attention of his congregation but then directed them to the
Scriptures. In this new style of preaching the Bible is placed in the
54 Feed My Sheep
background; the centre of attention is the situation of the listener. At

the root of this approach is a loss of confidence in the authority and
power of the Word of God.
People don’t respect the preacher
Connected with a loss of confidence in the Bible is a loss of respect for

the preacher. In times past the minister was a highly respected member
of society. Not any more. Not long ago I was looking to buy a trailer
and was examining one located in the garage of an older man. He
asked me what I did for a job. When he heard I was a minister he
immediately responded, “Well, they don’t have such a great record do
they!” While his response may not be typical it is not uncommon.
Many people don’t take the pastor seriously any more. Some will feel
sorry for him, others will be sceptical, still others will be cynical.
Preachers don’t rate highly in a pragmatic and utilitarian society
where everything is valued for its practical use or its economic return.
We can’t contribute anything visible or tangible or of practical benefit
to others; therefore, in the eyes of those around us, we aren’t all that
important. Ask school leavers in New Zealand what they want to do for
a job – chances are the profession of clergy will be near the bottom of
the list!
Media presentations of the clergyman have not helped our image.
Generally they picture him as an older man, slightly confused, rather
eccentric, who occupies his time drinking afternoon tea with old ladies.
Add to this the moral fall of some of America’s tele-evangelists and it is
little wonder that preachers are working uphill to get a hearing.
A general rejection of authority figures also contributes to the loss of
respect for the minister. In previous generations people respected men
who occupied positions of authority – parliamentarians, policemen,
teachers, doctors and ministers. Much of that has gone, especially
since the 1960s. The mood of the day is anti-authority. A preacher
cannot expect to gain a hearing just because of his position. Improved
opportunities for learning and a method of education that encourages

pupils to ask questions have sharpened people’s critical faculties. Now
everybody has his own opinions and his own convictions and
considers them just as good as the preacher’s.66 As they hear a sermon
people ask, “Who does he think he is? Fancy telling me what to do!”
The way people use pulpit words reflects this distorted understanding
of the task of the minister. To ‘preach’ has come to mean “to give
advice in an offensive, tedious or obtrusive manner”, while to be
‘sermonic’ is “to inflict on someone a patronising harangue.”67
A loss of respect for the preacher inevitably leads to a loss of respect
for preaching itself.
People don’t respect preaching
There have always been people who have found the preaching of the
gospel repugnant. What is to one “the fragrance of life” is to the other
“the smell of death” (2 Cor 2:16). The preaching of Christ crucified,
writes the Apostle Paul, is “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness
to Gentiles” (1 Cor 2:23). No one likes to face their own sin and need
of salvation – yet the preaching of the Word must expose our human
poverty. Such exposure is bound to be offensive to some. We see this
in some of the reactions to the preaching of the Apostles: Those
listening were “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37), they “were furious and
gnashed their teeth” (Acts 7:54), they “raised their voices and...were
shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air”
(Acts 22:22-23). To be sure, these were violent and extreme responses
but they illustrate that the gospel can be extremely distasteful to some.
Often, however, preaching is too bland for people to be offended.
Preachers are sometimes afraid of offending people so they soft-pedal
the hard parts of the gospel – the call to discipleship, the wrath of God
on sin, the punishment of hell for the unbelieving and ungodly. Yet the
task of the preacher is to proclaim the Scriptures. He must make the
gospel plain enough for people to see the issues, sufficiently clear for
56 Feed My Sheep
people to either accept or reject the message.

Others have found the preaching of the gospel predictable and
boring. They come to church merely out of habit or custom and do not
expect anything to happen. They do not anticipate any dramatic effect
in their minds or any impact on their lives. They do not believe that
preaching has any life changing significance.68 Some have come to
church for years and Sunday after Sunday have left untouched and
unchanged. Maybe they have hardened their hearts, but often the fault
lies with the preacher. Too often the preacher himself does not expect
any results from his preaching – he does not anticipate any dramatic
results or even subtle changes. Perhaps he is weary, lethargic and tired.
Boring preaching, however, is not gospel preaching. Whatever else
happens during the preaching people must not be bored; challenged,
rebuked or exhorted – but not bored.
Still others come to church expecting to be entertained. This, after
all, is an entertainment culture. People are amused by television for
many hours of the day; they are occupied by their sport and by a host
of leisure pursuits – why not be entertained at church as well? They
come with the question, “What’s in this for me? What can I get out of
this?” Many preachers have obliged, turning their Sunday services into
lively showcases designed to cater to the consumer mentality of our
culture. Such a response further undermines the authority of
preaching because it encourages those who come to church to look for
entertainment rather than the truth. Worship services are focussed on
providing an experience rather than on proclaiming God’s Word. The
emphasis is on my needs and wants rather than on God’s will and
truth.
How should preachers respond to this situation where the Bible, the
preacher and preaching itself are no longer respected or valued? Those
who preach must believe that they are proclaiming an authoritative
Bible; they must believe that they have authority as preachers of the
Word; and they must believe in the authority of preaching. We will
examine these three in turn.
RESPONSE: PREACHING IS AUTHORITATIVE
Over the last century conservative theologians have fought against

liberals in a battle for the Bible. This is not the place for a detailed
description of this debate. Yet we need to remind ourselves that
throughout her history the church believed that the Great Creator who
made this world and everything in it spoke to his people in words that
have been written down in the Bible.
The authority of God’s Word
Historically both Rome and the Reformers believed that the Bible, the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is the Word of God. They
believed this Word to be inerrant and authoritative, clear and
sufficient, to be read as “an historically structured, self-authenticating
and self-interpreting organism of revealed truth.”69
Some of the best formulations of the church’s confession about the
Bible are found in the old confessions of the Reformation. The Belgic
Confession (1561) is representative of what the Reformers believed:
We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the
regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any
doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives
and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Spirit
witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they carry the
evidence thereof within themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that
the things foretold in them are being fulfilled.70
All these books must be preached as the Word of God because it is only
through the Bible that people can believe in Jesus Christ and so escape
eternal judgement. In the parable about the rich man and Lazarus the
rich man, unable to obtain relief in the fires of hell, pleaded with
Abraham; “‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house,
58 Feed My Sheep
for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so they will not also come
to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the
prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but
if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to
him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be
convinced even if someone rises from the dead’” (Luke 16:27-31).
One lesson in this parable is that the Word of God is the only means we
have available to us for the conversion of the lost.
The written Word of God has this power because it tells us about the
Living Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was there at the
beginning (John 1:1), through whom all things were made (Cols 1:15-
18). Jesus Christ is central to the Bible. The Old Covenant is full of
longing and expectation for the arrival of the Messiah as is evident in
the prophecies about his coming in the Old Testament. When he
began his preaching ministry Jesus explained that he was the fulfilment
of these promises. As he travelled the road to Emmaus with two of his
disciples he took them for a tour through the Old Testament; “And
beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what
was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27) The
New Testament gospels describe his life, suffering, death and
resurrection, while the letters go on to explain the implications and
applications of his person and work. He is the central figure in God’s
great plan of redemption. When we preach the Scriptures we must
preach about the Lord pointing people to all the glorious facets of who
he is and what he has done – his humiliation and exaltation; the
benefits and blessings of his offices as prophet, priest and king; the
glory and scope of his kingdom; the nature and task of his church on
earth; and the glorious expectation of his return. Martin Luther
directed preachers to focus on Christ; “We preach always Him, the true
God and man. This may seem a limited and monotonous subject,
likely to be soon exhausted, but we are never at the end of it.”71 James
Stewart echoes this when he writes; “Settle it in your own souls now
that, whatever else you may do or leave undone, you will preach in
season and out of season God’s redemptive deed in Christ. This is the
one inexhaustible theme.”72 To preach is to declare this central

message of the Bible – the person and work of Jesus.
People will not gain a respect for preaching unless there is a
renewed confidence in these Scriptures and a conviction about its
content. When we have recovered a conviction about the truth of the
Bible then we will see a renewed confidence in preaching. Belief in the
authority of the Scriptures as the Word of God will lay the basis for a
revival of Biblical preaching in this country and, in turn, will lead to a
new respect for the preacher.
The authority of the preacher
There are no quick-fix solutions that will magically polish up the

tarnished image and reputation of the clergy. Preachers themselves
cannot control the way people view them, nor should this be our
primary concern. Yet there are two things we should concentrate on as
preachers – one is to understand and fulfil our calling as heralds; the
other is to live holy and godly lives as those who minister in Christ’s
name.
Our authority as preachers does not lie in ourselves; it does not
come from an ‘authoritarian’ style (in fact, in today’s climate, that may
even be counter-productive); it does not come from dressing in robes
or using ‘churchy’ language. None of these things will convince people
that they should listen to us. The only authority we have is that given
to us by Christ.
This is how the Apostle Paul saw his authority. He regarded himself
as an apostle of Christ, commissioned and appointed by the Lord
himself. Even in his day there were those who questioned his right to
speak and preach to them. His authority was challenged, especially by
some in the church in Corinth. Paul had to write to that church
defending and maintaining his apostleship. As he did so he explained
the authority of gospel preachers: “So then, men ought to regard us as
servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.”
60 Feed My Sheep
(1 Cor 4:1) He described himself and the other apostles as “servants,

through whom you came to believe” (1 Cor 3:5), “God’s fellow
workers” (1 Cor 3:9, 2 Cor 6:1), “an expert builder” (1 Cor 3:10), “a
father” (1 Cor 4:15), “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6) and as
“Christ’s ambassadors” (2 Cor 5:20). With these terms he made it clear
that their authority came from God; “Such confidence as this is ours
through Christ before God. Not that we are competent to claim
anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has
made us competent as ministers of a new covenant.” (2 Cor 3:4-6).
What Paul wrote of himself is also true of ministers of the gospel today.
We too are ministers of the new covenant with a competence that
comes from the Lord. We are not self-appointed or self-ordained;
rather every minister is called to this task by the Lord and set aside for
it by the church.
This truth is also explained in the word “herald”. Earlier we saw that
this term was used of a messenger sent out by the king. Here we note
that he is also sent with the authority of the one who sent him. People
had to listen to him because he proclaimed a message in the name of
the king. As the king’s messenger he represented the king and came
with his authority. His message usually demanded a response – the
subjects of the king were to do what the king commanded them.
Preachers in the church today are also heralds. We must set forth the
demands and commands of the king, expecting people to obey. An old
hymn puts it well when it says,
Ambassador to be of realms beyond the sea,

I’m here on business for my King.73
This is how we must see ourselves – as invested with the king’s

authority and entrusted with his message. Ministers of the Word should
not allow their view of their calling and authority to be shaped by the
current climate of opinion in the church or the world. Rather, our view
must be shaped by the Word of God. The pulpit will gain more
authority when we see ourselves as God sees us.
However, we will only gain a hearing if people see that our lives are
consistent with our message. We must be holy and godly. Public moral
failure has discredited not only those individuals who have sinned but
has tainted the reputation of all ministers. To prevent this it is essential
that we practise what we preach, that what we do backs up what we
say. The Apostle Paul reminded the Christians in Thessalonica of the
ministry of the apostles among them: “As apostles of Christ we could
have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a
mother caring for her little children. We loved you so much that we
were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our
lives as well, because you had become so dear to us.... You are
witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we
were among you who believed.” (1 Thess 2:7,8,10). Paul could write
to the Philippians urging them to join with others in following his
example (Phils 3:17). We ought to be able to say this as well.
Our example as preachers and men of God is a living sermon that
reinforces the message we preach. A struggling minister came to
Wesley inquiring as to the cause of a lack of power in his ministry.
Wesley gave the following forthright and honest evaluation: “Your
temper is uneven; you lack love for your neighbours. You grow angry
too easily; your tongue is too sharp – thus, the people will not hear
you.”74 Bryan Chapell reminds us of the importance of a godly life in
the following observation:
I must recognise that if I were to return to churches that I have pastored it is

unlikely that people will remember many specifics I said... not one person will
remember a dozen words of the thousands I have spoken through the years.
The people will not remember what I said, they will remember me and whether
my life gave credence to the message of Scripture.”75
In a society which already has a poor image of the minister it is

imperative that we pray that the Holy Spirit will work within us to shape
our Christian character and fill our lives with his fruit. Then we will gain
an authority that comes from the Word of God as it is preached by a
godly man.
62 Feed My Sheep
The authority of preaching
Preaching has authority when it is a faithful exposition, explanation

and application of the Word of God. John Bunyan’s description of the
preacher in Pilgrim’s Progress beautifully illustrates the centrality of the
Word of God for the minister of the gospel – he had “the best of books
in his hand.”76 John Wesley loved to describe himself as, homo unius
libri, “a man of one book,”77 and Billy Graham, to quote a more
contemporary example, was known for his well used phrase, “the
Bible says.”78 The preacher of the gospel must stand before the
congregation and be able to say; “Listen to the Word of the Lord”.
Preaching the Word of God
A sermon is not a social commentary. It must apply to the world, relate

to our situation, and connect with society; but the Word of God, not
the newspaper or the latest political development, must be the text, set
the agenda and determine the content.
Nor is a sermon a string of stories. Certainly illustrations can be
helpful in adding interest, colour and light; but a sermon of only stories
is like a meal of only meringue – there is no substance to it – it will not
feed God’s people who come to church week by week hungry for
spiritual nourishment.
Nor is a sermon to consist of reflections on our own experiences,
crises or struggles. Too often preachers offer their own ideas,
comments or insights. Bryan Chapell cautions us against “peppering
our sermons with expressions such as “I believe this means...,” “I feel
we should understand,” or even, “I think....” “Quite frankly, except for
peripheral matters, biblically astute congregations are not interested in
what the preacher thinks.”79 People do not come to hear our word, but
rather a word from the Lord! James Stewart reminds us that “human
hearts, bombarded with grim perplexities and damaging shadows of
despair, are crying as never before, “Is there any word from the
Lord?”... They don’t want our views, opinions, advice or arguments. Is

there any word from the Lord?”80 It is imperative, therefore, that
preachers do not expound their own experiences or opinions but
preach the message and content of the Scriptures.
Nor is authority in preaching a question of manner or style.
Preaching must have authority but should not be authoritarian. To
carry convicting power the preacher does not need to shout, rant or
rave – in fact, ranting and raving may turn people away from the
message. The authority in preaching comes from the Word of God
itself, not from an authoritarian manner.
To return to my opening statement: Preaching has authority when
it is a faithful exposition, explanation and application of the Word of
God. John Stott explains this clearly when he writes:
Preaching is a ‘manifestation’, phanerosis, of the truth which stands written in

the Scriptures. Therefore, every sermon should be, in some sense, an
expository sermon. The preacher may use illustrations from political, ethical,
and social fields to illumine and enforce the Biblical principles he is seeking to
unfold, but the pulpit is no place for purely political commentary, ethical
exhortation or social debate.81
Haddon Robinson puts it this way; “When a preacher fails to preach

the Scriptures, he abandons his authority. He confronts his hearers no
longer with a word from God but only with another word from men.”82
All this reflects the view of the Reformers who rightly regarded the
faithful preaching of the Word of God as the Word of God. Calvin
expresses this plainly when he writes: “...the word of the gospel, whatever
man may preach it, is the very sentence of God, published at the supreme
judgement seat, written in the Book of Life, ratified, fixed and firm, in
heaven.”83 This was expressly stated in the Second Helvetic Confession
of 1566: “The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.
Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by
preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is
preached, and received of the faithful; and that neither any other Word of
64 Feed My Sheep
God is to be feigned nor to be expected from heaven.” The Ordination

service for the priest in the Anglican church also reflects a high view of the
authority of preaching and its close connection with the Word of God. A
successful ministry, according to the ordinal, is one in which a man is “a
faithful and effective communicator of the biblical message.”84 To do this
requires that a man give adequate time to “daily reading and weighing of
the Scriptures” so that he may “wax riper and stronger” in his ministry.85
With these statements the Reformers were simply expressing the truth of
the Bible itself. The Apostle Paul, for instance, wrote to the Thessalonians;
“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the
Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word
of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who
believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). The Word the Thessalonians heard was
the Word the apostles had preached to them, which Paul regarded as the
very Word of God. When a preacher today faithfully preaches the
Scriptures then his sermon is truly the Word of the Lord. This is not to say
that every sermon preached is the Word of God because, sadly, many
sermons are a proclamation of a preacher’s own ideas rather than being
a proclamation of the Scriptures. To be the Word of God to God’s people
a sermon must be thoroughly Biblical, both in its content and in its
faithfulness to the intent of the passage being preached.86 Such preaching
has usually been described as ‘expository’.
Expository Preaching
Expository preaching has been defined in many ways. Some

understand exposition to consist of a running commentary on a
passage, explaining it verse by verse and applying it along the way.
Others define an expository sermon as one based on three or more
verses of Scripture distinguishing it from textual preaching which is
based on a shorter passage or one verse. It is better, however, to define
expository preaching, not on the length of the passage, but on the
faithfulness of the sermon to the Word of God. An expository sermon
must explain, illustrate and apply the intent of a selected passage of the
Bible. This may require the preacher to distil the essence of a long
passage or to explore the meaning and implications of a brief verse.87
Brian Chapell talks about an “expository unit” and defines it as “a large
or small portion of Scripture from which the preacher can demonstrate
a single spiritual truth with adequate supporting facts or concepts
arising from within the scope of a text.”88 Haddon Robinson defines
expository preaching as “the communication of a biblical concept,
derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and
literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first
applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through
him to his hearers.”89 Common to these two definitions is that a sermon
must communicate the truth of a passage of Scripture.
This book is not an explanation of the mechanics of preparing
expository sermons – that subject is well covered in other books,
including the two just quoted. We should note, however, that a sermon
must concentrate on one main truth. An effective sermon is not a
running commentary on a passage but a well shaped message
emphasising one central point (variously described as a proposition,
theme, concept, main thought, thesis statement, or big idea). Sermons
don’t fail from having too many ideas but from having ideas that are
not connected with the main theme of the sermon.90 A sermon should
be like a single bullet rather than the hundreds of little pellets of a
shotgun blast; all the ideas mentioned in the sermon should contribute
to the impact of the one main idea. This idea should be developed in
a clear, logical and well-structured outline, fleshed out in vivid
language, illustrated with pertinent stories and examples, and applied
to the needs of the congregation. Expository preaching is powerful
because it is biblical. It allows the Scriptures to speak. It explains and
applies the truth of the Bible. Such preaching carries the authority and
power of the Word of God.
Expository preaching may be contrasted with preaching that is
based on our own thoughts or ideas. The Lord spoke through
Jeremiah condemning the prophets who prophesied the visions and
66 Feed My Sheep
dreams of their own minds rather than the Word of the Lord: “Let the
prophet who has a dream tell his dream, but let the one who has my
word speak it faithfully.... Is not my word like fire and like a hammer
that breaks a rock in pieces.” (Jer 23:28-29). The great need of our day
is not the prophesies, dreams and visions that so many claim to have
had but the faithful preaching of the Scriptures. The neglect and
absence of such preaching must be a major reason why many
churches in New Zealand today are declining. There is no clear “word
from the Lord”. There is no proclamation, exposition and application
of the Scriptures – no, “Thus says the Lord!” Frank Colquhoun calls for
such preaching when he writes:
The Bible is the preacher’s textbook... in the sense that it is the authoritative
Word which it is his main business to expound and on which he bases the whole
of his message. Only as he looks at the Scriptures in this light will he be able to
meet the needs of those to whom he ministers. The unspoken cry of every
gathered congregation to the preacher is not “Is there any bright idea from the
current religious debate?” but “Is there any word from the Lord?”91
Topical Preaching
The authority of preaching, as we have seen, comes from its

faithfulness to the Scriptures. Yet preachers face a constant temptation
to inject their own ideas into their sermons and to borrow from the
thinking of the surrounding culture. It is especially easy to fall for this
temptation when preaching topical sermons. There are as many
definitions of the word ‘topical’ in relation to sermons as there are of
the word ‘expository’. We could define ‘topical’ sermons as those
organised around a subject or topic rather than a passage of the Bible.
In the topical approach the preacher summarises what he believes the
whole Bible is saying on a particular topic, whereas expository
sermons are rooted in a detailed analysis of particular passages of
Scripture. Both types of sermons are difficult to write and preach. Both
require a substantial knowledge of biblical and systematic theology.

Many preachers believe that topical preaching is easier, but they
underestimate the difficulties of this approach. Topical preaching is
fraught with dangers because it is extremely difficult to present a
balanced and comprehensive study of a topic in one sermon. To do
this requires a substantial theological education and a good grasp of
the overall teaching of the Bible. Preachers ought to have such a
knowledge, but many do not.
Another weakness of topical preaching is that preachers pass their
messages through the grid of their own ideas. The information in a
topical sermon is organised according to the ideas of the preacher
rather than letting the passage itself provide the content and outline. Of
course, even in expository preaching the preacher may organise his
sermon around a logical outline rather than following the flow of
thought in the passage. Yet the danger of imposing one’s own ideas on
the Scriptures is increased in topical preaching – it is all too easy to
preach one’s own agenda rather than the content and intent of the
Scriptures.92
A further weakness of the topical approach has to do not only with
content of the sermon but with the approach to the subject. Topical
messages are usually chosen because of the perceived relevance of the
topic for the congregation at that time. The preacher will be interested
to demonstrate just how relevant this topic is. Of course, relevance and
application are crucial elements of a sermon, but the great danger of
the topical approach is that the application will control the exposition
rather than the exposition controlling the application. In our desire to
preach ‘relevantly’ on this topic the preacher may be tempted to put
the cart before the horse; ie. to think first about how the listener will
hear the message rather than asking what the Bible is actually saying
and then asking how it applies. To avoid this danger in the topical
sermon the preacher must be sure he does careful exegesis, expounds
the passages and makes the application from the texts he is preaching.
Systematic exegetical preaching, by contrast, makes it easier for a
preacher to stay close to the Biblical text. In doing so there is less
68 Feed My Sheep
possibility of straying from the content and emphases of the Scriptures.

Yet another weakness of the topical approach is that ministers tend
to preach their hobby horses. We all gravitate to subjects we are
interested in. If the topical sermon is our main approach to preaching
we run the great danger of missing key themes and elements of the
Scriptures. Rather than preaching our favourite subjects or pet themes
we must preach the fullness of the revelation God has given us in the
Scriptures. This is worth exploring further for a moment.
The whole counsel of God
A topical approach to preaching aims to deal with particular subjects.

Yet we must aim to imitate the Apostle Paul who assured the Ephesian
elders that he had not hesitated to proclaim to them the “whole
counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). The best way to achieve this is through
systematic expository preaching. If we work our way through the
Scriptures in a systematic and thorough manner then over the years we
will cover the range of biblical truth that will be helpful to those who
hear. Following this method will ensure that we are never short of truth
to preach. James Stewart expresses this well when he writes;
If there are indeed “unsearchable riches” in Christ, you will always be pioneering
and exploring, always discovering new depths in the gospel, and the streams of
the river of life will never for you run dry. The longest ministry is too short by far
to exhaust the treasures of the Word of God. Certainly if you preach your own
theories and ideas, using Scripture texts merely as pegs to hang them on, you will
soon be at the end of your resources – and the sooner the better. But if you will
let the Scriptures speak their own message, if you will realise that every passage
or text has its own distinctive meaning, you will begin to feel that the problem is
not lack of fresh material, but the very embarrassment of riches.93
There are many examples of preachers who have successfully

followed this approach. One already mentioned is D. Martyn Lloyd-
Jones in his long ministry in Westminster Chapel. A contemporary
example is John MacArthur Jnr., who has been the pastor of Grace
Community Church in Sun Valley, California since 1969.
There are various ways to achieve a systematic expository ministry.
Probably the most common approach is to preach through a book of
the Bible. As we work our way through one book after another,
according to the needs of the congregation, preaching both the Old
Testament and the New, we will cover the full range of biblical truth.
Our preaching will also give weight to areas that the Scriptures
themselves give weight to. Another approach is to follow the church
year. Some denominations (Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist,
Lutheran) follow the lectionary readings from Epiphany through to
Trinity, which also ensures a good coverage of the Biblical data.
Archbishop Cranmer designed the first (1549) Prayer Book for the
Anglican church so that the whole Bible would be read continuously
through the year. Following his plan the Old Testament would be read
through once and the New Testament through three times per year.
“No church before or since has ever read the Bible so assiduously as
Cranmer directed the Church of England to do.”94 In my own
denomination ministers will generally preach through a book of the
Bible in the morning service but in the afternoon or evening service
they will follow the sequence of Christian doctrine and life as
summarised in one of the four confessions of our churches (The
Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort and
Westminster Confession). Any one of these methods (or a
combination of them) will help us preach through the Bible in a
systematic manner.
What is important is that the Scriptures are preached. Following the
church year or a catechism or confession of the church may be seen as
a guided topical approach to preaching. This will avoid the dangers of
the topical sermon if we take a passage of the Bible as our starting point
and seek to preach the intent of that passage rather than our own
thoughts and ideas about the subject of the catechism or the lectionary
reading for that Sunday.
In all of this it is more important that we have a good grasp of a
70 Feed My Sheep
theology of preaching than that we master any particular technique.

We need to be utterly convinced that the Word of God is the inspired
record of what God wants mankind to know for faith and practice; that
the Head of the church sets aside certain men to be preachers of this
Word; and that this Word must be preached in a way that explains the
intent of the passage and applies it to our contemporary situation.
When the Bible is so preached people will see its relevance for their
lives. To this we now turn.
71
Chapter 4
IS PREACHING
RELEVANT?
OBJECTION: PREACHING IS IRRELEVANT
The first objection we considered dealt with the method of preaching

and questioned its effectiveness. We responded by pointing out that
preaching is commanded in the Scriptures and has been used
powerfully by the Lord in the history of the church. Then we
considered the objection that preaching lacks authority in the world
today. We noted that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and
that God has appointed preachers to be his heralds. When they
faithfully preach his Word their sermons are the Word of God to those
who hear.
Others object that preaching is not relevant to the real issues and
needs of people today. The Collins Concise Dictionary defines
‘relevant’ as “having direct bearing on the matter in hand”. Many in
both the world and the church would argue that preaching has no
“direct bearing” on their lives – it is irrelevant.
The attitude of society
People in society often accuse the church and its ministers of being
irrelevant. We have to admit that often this charge is true. Many people
come to church expecting, hoping to hear a “word from the Lord” that
will speak to their lives; too often they travel home disappointed.
Perhaps the preacher spoke in a language and a tone that was difficult
to understand; maybe there was no application or connection with
people’s lives; possibly the message seemed foreign to their situation.
This has happened with sufficient regularity for many to have
72 Feed My Sheep
developed low expectations of preaching.

These factors have contributed to a situation where few New
Zealanders look to the church for any meaningful advice or guidance.
Most people looking for direction will go to the social scientists and
psychologists, not to the church. Television and radio commentators
will consult so-called ‘experts’ rather than speak to the clergy. The
columnists in Woman’s Weekly have replaced the pastor as the
advisers and counsellors in people’s lives. In our secular society
preachers and preaching have been sidelined, relegated to the wings,
only to be called on if some religious controversy erupts or a
theological debate is stirred.
The attitude of the church
Unfortunately, trends within the church have contributed to the

perceived irrelevance of preaching. Increasingly over the past few
decades ministers have been distracted from their preaching task by
other responsibilities and expectations. Last century the job
description of a minister was relatively simple (even if the task was not).
He was expected to devote his time to preaching in two services on the
Sunday, to instruct the young people of the church and to be a pastor.
Today’s pastors have many and varied expectations placed on them.
Some of these arise out of the high profile of ‘successful’ pastors of
mega-churches: “Meet Pastor Jones, Superstar. He can preach,
counsel, evangelise, administrate, conciliate, communicate and
sometimes even integrate. He can also raise the budget.”95 Yet,
realistically, most pastors cannot do all these tasks and still prepare
thoroughly for the preaching on the Sunday. Other pressures arise out
of the expectations, exhortations and hype of the church growth
movement that mails pastors a constant stream of information giving
them the latest techniques and methods to build a church that is
vibrant, successful and multiplying. Increasingly pastors are being
distracted from the task of preaching the gospel and shepherding
Is Preaching Relevant? 73
God’s flock by other functions that are at best peripheral to the ministry
and at worst harmful to it.
One of the main additions to a minister’s workload is the increasing
time spent in counselling and therapy. This reflects the breakdown in
society and the increasing problems and difficulties in people lives.
Many people in NZ suffer from some form of depression; we have the
highest youth suicide rate and the second highest teen pregnancy rate
in the developed world; there are 175 divorces every week and two out
of every five births occur outside of marriage. These statistics are
representative of enormous and deep-seated problems in people’s
personal lives. A growing band of professional counsellors and
psychologists deal with these people, but many of these problems are
also present in the church and come to the pastor. It is too much to
expect a pastor to prepare well-studied and thoughtful sermons when
he is trying to cope with a growing tide of counselling situations.
Something is going to suffer – often it is the preaching.
Management responsibilities are another demand on the minister’s
time. The growth in administration is a result of a number of factors:
The increasing complexity of society, the diversification of the church’s
ministries, denominational responsibilities and the trend to larger
(even ‘mega’) congregations. There is a trend for the minister to
become the Chief Executive Officer of a large ecclesiastical operation,
modelling his actions on the managerial techniques of the business
world. Again what often suffers is the preaching of the Word.
Preaching has also taken a secondary place to other elements of
worship. “At the present time liturgy is all the fashion and focus of
interest. We are told that worship must come first; that worship is the
church’s first duty and is more important than preaching; that people
do not go to church to listen to sermons but to give glory to God.”96 For
some, therefore, this shift of emphasis has been deliberate – they
believe that other forms of communication are more effective than the
preaching medium – such as mime, dance, drama and puppets. For
others this has happened more by chance than by design; the
complexity and diversity of worship styles and format has meant that
74 Feed My Sheep
the minister has become a worship coordinator more than a preacher,

a facilitator more than a theologian. The current trend in worship is
from content towards experience, from proclamation towards
atmosphere, from preaching to entertainment. One week I drove past
a church that advertised its Sunday evening youth service with a board
that said; “YOUTH SERVICE: Loud Music! Drama! Action!” The
following week it was advertising a “FAMILY SERVICE: Scones,
Country and Western”. Preaching may well be a part of the service but
no mention was made of it in the advertisement, probably because it
is not seen as a drawcard.
All these factors make preaching an uphill battle in today’s climate,
both in the world and the church. Preaching has taken second place to
other ‘livelier’ and more ‘modern’ forms of communication. The many
expectations of the twentieth century pastor have diversified his task
with the result that he is spread thinner and over a wider area than he
was, say, last century. Campbell Morgan warned that, “This is a day in
which one of our greatest perils is that of doing a thousand little things
to the neglect of the one thing, which is preaching.”97
So, is preaching relevant? Does it have “direct bearing” on the lives
of those who listen? Are those pursuing the therapeutic and
managerial models of ministry on the right track? Perhaps we should
give way to the current trends? Are those who neglect preaching to
focus on a more entertaining and diversified form of worship onto
something? In response, I maintain that preaching is relevant to New
Zealanders today because it has direct bearing on their needs, both
their eternal need and the more immediate needs in their lives.
RESPONSE 1: PREACHING IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH ETERNAL

ISSUES
Faithful preaching of the Scriptures addresses the greatest need of

each person – the need to know God through repentance and faith.
True preaching brings every person face to face with God and
challenges them to believe in him. Preaching the Word of God will

bring great issues to the attention of those who listen, critical issues they
must consider. Such preaching will be based on the ultimate and
absolute truth of the Bible. It will expose human sin and the misery that
arises out of it. It will explain our need for salvation. It will point people
to Christ as their great hope. It will call people to a response of faith and
obedience. The subjective and changing needs of our human situation
all too easily distract us from these central truths. Yet the Word of God
“is rather addressed to that objective and true human condition
stripped of all the lies of human subjectivity.”98 The Bible enables us to
see ourselves as we are in relation to the God who made us. For this
reason preaching is always relevant because the need of mankind is
always the same.
Some preachers and churches put a lot of emphasis on meeting the
‘felt needs’ of those they are trying to reach. They believe we must be
sensitive to these needs and that people’s sense of need ought to guide
the selection of topics preached and the content of the sermons. It is
true that felt needs can provide a good starting point for the preacher
– it provides a way in, an entry point. But the need a person feels may
not be his most important need. He may feel sad that his marriage has
broken up but may be oblivious of his guilt in this and his need for
repentance; his felt need may obscure his real need. It is also true that
Jesus met people’s needs – at times. He welcomed mothers with their
little children, he healed lepers, he gave sight to the blind, made a
paralytic walk. But he also confronted people with their sin, he rebuked
the pharisees for being “blind guides” and “whitewashed tombs”, and
he threw over the tables of the money changers and chased the traders
out of the temple. In these instances he was hardly sensitive to the ‘felt
needs’ of these individuals. “What the Christian community says to the
world should be based on criteria of truth, not on sociological market
research or public relations.”99 The substance and content of our
sermons should not be guided by the felt needs of the audience but
rather by the Word of God. This Word has a timeless message
addressed to people through all the ages.
76 Feed My Sheep
The essential message of preaching does not change from one

century to another – that is; “That God was reconciling the world to
himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them” (2 Corinthians
5:19). The content of the message does not change because “Jesus
Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). One
Christian writer observes that, “the nearer we come to the heart of the
gospel, the deeper we penetrate beneath the changeable surface of life,
and the closer we get to matters in which our needs are
indistinguishable from the needs of men in any other period of
history.”100 This also answers the objection that preachers are too
‘other-worldly’. Campbell Morgan responds; “When we cease to be
otherworldly we lose our ability to touch this world with any healing
and uplifting power.”101 Alistair McGrath makes the same point: “To
be right is to be relevant...the task of Christian apologetics is to bring
out the inherent attraction of the gospel by its faithful and responsible
proclamation and presentation. In other words, the best way of
ensuring that Christianity remains relevant to the modern world is to be
faithful to Christian orthodoxy, while ensuring that this is articulated in
intelligible terms to the world.”102 Good preaching will frequently and
regularly deal with the timeless truths of the gospel because these are
matters of eternal significance and are of direct relevance to the life of
every individual in the world.
RESPONSE 2: PREACHING IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH PEOPLE’S

LIVES
Preaching has direct bearing on the immediate issues we face in our

lives. It must not be academic and theoretical but grounded in the daily
realities of existence. It must help people resolve their doubts, carry
their cross, survive their struggles, endure their trials. Congregations
need to be “instructed and edified and equipped for the battle of
life.”103 Our preaching must be practical, earthed in normal everyday
events and regular routines. For instance, the Bible has much to say
about marriage and the various relationships we have in the family as

husbands and wives, parents and children. It has a good deal to say
about money – how we should manage it, what to do with it and our
attitude to it. It deals with work and our relationships to those over us
and under us. Preaching the Word of God will deal with these practical
matters.
If we are to apply the Scriptures to people’s needs we must know
what these needs are. People living in the world come to church week
by week expecting to hear “a word from the Lord”, but “as they rise to
go home, they go hopeless and helpless, wondering why the Biblical
message is so irrelevant today.” The cause may be that the preacher “is
living in a different world, immersed in fantasies, far from the pain,
confusion and hard choices people face.”104 To avoid this situation an
effective preacher must also be a pastor. He is not like an actor
performing to an audience, but rather a shepherd caring for his flock,
a father speaking to his children, a minister looking after his
congregation. John Stott quotes Bishop Phillips Brooks who said;
“The preacher needs to be a pastor, that he may preach to real men.
The pastor must be a preacher, that he may keep the dignity of his work
alive. The preacher, who is not a pastor, grows remote. The pastor,
who is not a preacher, grows petty.”105 To preach sermons that
connect we must be visiting our congregation in their homes and
workplaces so we know what they are going through and what is on
their minds and hearts. “The effective preacher is always a diligent
pastor...The more they speak to him in his study on weekdays, the
better he will speak to them from the pulpit on Sundays.”106 Another
teacher of preachers put it like this; “Preaching does not take place in
a vacuum. Effective preaching requires that we develop authentic
relationships with our hearers. There should be a conversation going
on between you and your congregation all the time. You are truly in a
dialogue with them about life, faith, hope, making sense of the past,
planning for the future, helping them see the relevance of their faith in
the light of their daily situations.”107 We must be seen as fellow
pilgrims, travelling the same path, experiencing similar struggles, going
78 Feed My Sheep
through common difficulties. If we are to gain a sympathetic hearing

we cannot stand two metres high above contradiction and divorced
from their situation.
In our preaching we must show that the Scriptures do speak to
everyday problems, to life situations, to what goes on from Monday to
Saturday. Of course, the Bible does not say everything about
everything, but it does say something about many things, and it gives
us principles that can be applied to every situation. The Westminister
Confession of Faith expresses this principle as follows; “The whole
counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory,
man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture,
or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by
new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”108 As preachers we
must believe that the Word of God is relevant to our listeners; but we
must also show them how it relates to their lives. We must show those
listening how this particular passage of the Bible intersects with their
situation.109 To do this we must ask two questions; “What did this
passage say to the original hearers?”, and, “What does it have to say
to us today?” Or, more succinctly; “What?” and, “So what?” The
timeless truths of the Word of God must be applied to these particular
times in which we live. As we attempt to do this there are two dangers
we face. One is to put too much emphasis on relevance to the world.
The other is to disregard the question of relevance and ignore the
world.
THE DANGER OF ABSORBING THE WORLD
One danger facing preachers is to over-emphasise the need to be

relevant and to let the world set the agenda and determine the content
of what is preached. This is the classic error of liberalism. In its
eagerness to please modern man it has been all too ready to
“reinterpret Christianity according to the latest intellectual and cultural
fashion.”110 Liberals have always wanted to be up-to-date.

“Enlightenment liberals had their rational religion and criticism of the
Bible; romantic liberals had their warm feelings; existentialist liberals
had their crises of meaning and their leaps of faith; there is now a
postmodern liberalism.”111 The problem with liberalism is that it takes
over the thinking of the world. This is a danger for every believer. It is
possible to become so immersed in the world and its thinking that we
bring the categories of the world into the Bible. We allow our thinking
to be shaped by the world. Brian Smith, former Principal of the Baptist
Theological College, warns against the dangers of ‘relevance’:
For all its attractiveness, however, the road to relevance is a broad way that
leads to destruction, the destruction of the gospel. Translation into ‘relevant’
categories leads inevitably to the message being reduced to what is acceptable.
Eventually it is transformed into the truisms of its hearers. (After all, who is
going to deny that people need housing?) In the end the radicality of a God who
cares enough about us to sacrifice a Son is transformed into banal mumblings
about being nice to our neighbours and doing the decent thing. The road to
relevance is a dead end that terminates in the cul-de-sac of the
commonplace.”112
Os Guiness sounds a similar warning when he writes; “The pursuit of

relevance for its own sake quickly leads to superficiality, anxiety,
burnout, and compromise.”113 This is a word of caution for preachers
obsessed with being ‘up-to-date’ and for those chasing the latest fad or
fashion. If we are always trying to preach a message that relates to the
newest trend we run the danger of becoming irrelevant. Preaching that
concentrates on current events and the tastes of the day “loses all true
relevance and founders in the ephemeral triviality of the moment.”114
William Willimon puts it well when he says; “I’m not saying the issues
of our day should be ignored, but too often we let their seeming
urgency overshadow the gospel, which in the end is the really urgent
message we have.” He writes;
My first priority, then, is to preach a sermon that speaks about the gospel, not
80 Feed My Sheep
a speech that explores people’s experiences.... A sermon is, first and foremost,
about Jesus Christ and what he has done for us and what he calls us to do for
him and one another. I want to preach so that people come expecting to hear
a word about that. In short, I want to train them to ask not “Was this relevant
to the latest things going on in my world?” but “Was this sermon faithful to the
revealed text of Scripture?”115
Such preaching is relevant because it is the proclamation of the

timeless and eternal truth of the Word.
A long time ago the apostle Paul recognised the danger of trying to
keep up with the times when he warned Christians in the early church;
“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but
let God re-mould your minds from within.” (Romans 12:2, J.B. Phillips
Translation). Campbell Morgan reiterated this warning in our own
century when he said; “Our business is never to catch, but by eternal
truth to correct the spirit of the age.”116 Yet too often we have caught
the thinking of the world rather than corrected it. The Biblical message
is then distorted or lost.
I venture to say that many preachers in New Zealand today have
lost power in their preaching because they are more concerned with
being acceptable to the modern mind-set than with being faithful to the
truth of the Bible.
THE DANGER OF IGNORING THE WORLD
The other equal and opposite danger is to ignore the world and the
culture we live in. Some may react against the danger of liberalism to
the point they become irrelevant. They fail to communicate because
they don’t understand the culture or language of the people they are
speaking to. We have probably all seen groups of Christians standing
on a street corner addressing those hurrying past them, announcing
the judgement to come and warning of the punishment of hell. These
people may be ‘preaching’ but they are hardly communicating.
What we need to do is take the Word of God and apply it to our

modern day context; we must bridge the gap between the Word of
God, written 2000 years ago, and the world today, with its different
technology, races and cultures. This is the task of the preacher.
PREACHING CONNECTS THE WORD TO THE WORLD
A church billboard announced; “Jesus is the Answer!” Underneath

someone had written, “What is the question?” The lack of appropriate
and perceptive questions is one of the barriers to communicating the
gospel. Many do not see the connection between the Word of God and
the world they live in. They do not realise the importance of the issues
of eternity. They do not realise that the Bible has much to say about the
practical details of our lives. The challenge facing the preacher is to
raise the underlying issues and the practical questions of life and to
show that the good news of the gospel answers these.
This requires that a preacher know God’s Word, the world, and his
congregation, and be able to relate the three. In other words, he must
demonstrate the relevance of God’s timeless truth to the times we live
in; to apply the Word to our contemporary life situation. This has been
the concern of all preachers. Karl Barth is reputed to have said that we
must preach with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the
other. James Stewart wrote, “But while the basic message thus remains
constant and invariable, our presentation of it must take account of,
and be largely conditioned by, the actual world on which our eyes look
out today.”117 John Stott describes the preacher’s task as that of a
‘bridge-builder’ – bridging the gap between the Word of God and the
world in which we live.118 This must be done for both believers and
unbelievers.
The relevance of preaching to believers

82 Feed My Sheep
Our preaching must help those within the church see how the Word of
God bears on the world they live in. We want our people to maintain
their faith in all the pressures and temptations of our modern world.
But we want them to do more than survive – we want them to be able
to fulfil the calling God gives them. We want them to be useful
members of the body of Christ, able citizens of God’s kingdom and
faithful witnesses for the Lord Jesus Christ. We want them to be a salt
and a light in our present desperate situation so that they are a
preserving and transforming influence in society. Our task as preachers
is to help believers know their calling and live it out.
To do this believers must know both the Word of God and the
situation they live in. They need a good knowledge of the Bible and the
contemporary setting. Then they must be able to see how Biblical truth
should be applied in the situation God has placed them. As preachers,
therefore, we must have a good grasp of both the Scriptures and our
culture; we must be able to relate the gospel to the current issues,
trends and world-views around us. Our preaching must apply to our
local situation, but also to our current day and age. It must be localised
geographically and chronologically. We are not preaching to the world
of the eighteenth century or to the sixteenth century, but to our own
context, to the world as it is. So we must think carefully about our own
situation and consider how to present this message from God in a way
that speaks to the people today.
The Bible is full of examples of such audience adaptation –
messengers from God brought the truth to bear on the specific
situation of those listening. The Old Testament prophets proclaimed
God’s Word and applied it to their contemporary situation. They lived
in diverse situations and spoke God’s Word to their own generation.
Nathan was called to speak to King David about his sin; Elijah and
Isaiah prophesied to Judah in times of apostasy the ninth and eighth
centuries respectively; Ezekiel encouraged the disheartened exiles in
Babylon in the sixth century; and Haggai and Zechariah spurred on
the post-exilic people struggling to rebuild the temple and re-establish
themselves in Israel. In each of these situations the truth of God
remained the same, but it was applied to different circumstances. The

Apostle Paul also knew the importance of communicating age-old
truth to the people and the age he found himself in. He urged the
Christians in Rome to be obedient “understanding the present time”
(Romans 13:11).119
Connecting preaching to our modern world is more than turning
“every newspaper headline into a topic for next Sunday’s sermon.”120
It requires that we do more than read the latest Listener surveys,
analyse statistics, or recognise felt needs, useful though these may be.
Certainly there are plenty of illustrations and examples to be found in
contemporary events, but our analysis must go deeper than this. We
must understand the main features of our age, the movement of our
times, the direction of events. We must listen carefully so we
understand the heart and mind of our culture.
This, of course, takes a lot of reading, study and thinking. Some will
object that this is impossible: “Just dealing with the normal routine of
church life keeps me more than occupied. I cannot add this sort of
reading to my administration, visiting and counselling.” But if we are
to preach effectively to our congregations we must be students of the
Bible and of life. “Your preaching is most effective when you shine the
light of the gospel onto the confusing paths on which your people walk.
Help them to discover that the message of Jesus Christ is as relevant
today as it was in the first century.”121 Through such preaching
believers who gather in congregations week by week will be better
equipped to serve the Lord Jesus in his kingdom.
The relevance of preaching to unbelievers
The principles of relevant communication not only apply to preaching

in the church but also, and even more so, when preaching to
unbelievers. Most of our preaching as pastors is to Christians. Yet we
should be thinking of ways we can communicate to those who do not
yet believe. Preaching, of course, is not the only way to do this. Other
84 Feed My Sheep
means include seminars, Bible studies, videos and lecture

presentations. I wish to concentrate, however, on preaching for, as I
have argued earlier, I believe this to be the primary and most effective
means of proclaiming the gospel. Maybe we could make more use of
open-air preaching at beaches, shopping malls, universities or public
squares? Can we learn something from the Apostle Paul? Certainly, he
was an Apostle, a gifted communicator, a missionary, and an itinerant
preacher, all of which you and I may not be. Yet we can learn
something from the way he made use of every opportunity to reach
unbelievers: He preached in the Jewish synagogues, a lecture hall, the
market places, a river bank and the steps of the Roman garrison in
Jerusalem. We could be more creative and adventurous in finding
places to preach.
When preaching to unbelievers it is essential that we show them
that God’s Word does have a direct bearing on their lives. This will
involve an awareness of the needs a person has, the issues he is facing
and the questions he is asking. Jesus, more than anyone,
demonstrated an acute sensitivity to the peculiar situation of those he
was talking to: He spoke to the woman at the well about living water;
to the Pharisee, Nicodemus, about the necessity of rebirth; to the blind
man about the Light of the world; to the tax collectors about money; to
the Galilean fishermen about being fishers of men. Jesus found a
‘point of contact’ with each individual he spoke to.122
This audience sensitivity can be applied beyond the individual to
our communication with groups of people. We can see this in the
sermons of the Apostle Paul. When preaching to a Jewish audience he
began with the Old Testament Scriptures showing that Jesus was the
fulfilment of all that had been promised and that he was the Messiah,
the Christ. When preaching to a Gentile audience on the Areopagus in
Athens he began with God the Creator and our responsibility to seek
Him and find Him, and then went on to the revelation of God in Christ
(Acts 17:16-34). Paul adapted his approach to his audience. Our
situation in New Zealand today has many similarities to that of Athens
in Paul’s day and his approach has many lessons for us in our own
preaching today. Adaptation like this requires a good understanding of

our audience and their situation. We apply this principle to our mission
work. If a church sends missionaries out to a foreign country it will
ensure they receive a thorough training in the language and culture of
that country. The missionaries themselves want to be familiar with the
culture they are ministering in. This should be true of us as we serve in
our own country. We too need to be familiar with the culture, thinking
and world-views present in New Zealand. A good grasp of these things
will help us to be more effective communicators of the gospel.
A genuine concern for audience adaptation has motivated the
‘seeker service’ approach modelled on Willow Creek. Their aim is to
present the message of the Christian faith in a manner that effectively
communicates to unbelievers who may be seeking. This aim not only
controls the style of the service but also the selection of subjects to be
preached. While the aim of effective communication is a good one this
seeker sensitive approach suffers from a serious weakness. Darrel
Schultz, a former senior pastor of a Willow Creek style church
comments; “For the preacher who wants to be seeker-sensitive, the list
of potential topics goes up and list of usable Bible passages goes down.
It is more than likely that many of the areas a church needs to hear
about (for example... sin, repentance, and God’s judgement) will fall
victim to the preacher’s inner censorship board which evaluates all
seeker-service events on the criterion of sensitivity to non-churched
Harry.”123 The seeker service approach has a distinct bias away from
biblical breadth and theological depth. A regular diet of seeker services
is likely to produce seekers and believers who are biblically and
theologically under-nourished.
Good preaching, however, will direct those listening toward the
goal of Christian maturity. When preaching to those unfamiliar with
the Scriptures it may be useful to introduce the sermon with an event
in society or a need in their life that will give us an initial foothold. This
will be more important when dealing with a subject such as Christ’s
propitiatory sacrifice than when dealing with relationships, as the latter
will seem more immediately relevant. Yet we must go deeper than
86 Feed My Sheep
these initial points of contact in preaching. If we are always preaching

about relationships and never proclaim the cross then unbelievers will
not be converted nor will they become thorough-going disciples of
Jesus. In an address to the VISION New Zealand Congress in January
1993 John Hitchen described the breadth and depth of the Biblical
pictures of salvation. He pointed out that specific analogies can speak
to different people but warned against “looking only for relevant
aspects of the gospel.... While essential in initial evangelism, they are
inadequate as a final goal in evangelism. The task is not complete until
the person is on the transformation pathway that will lead to
maturity.”124
This reinforces the point that the whole gospel must be proclaimed,
even in evangelism. If we do not proclaim the fullness of the gospel we
run the grave danger of misrepresenting it. Those listening may not
hear the essence and heart of the gospel message and may be like the
seed that had no depth of soil; they may not count the cost and be like
the seed choked by the thorns. Here is a critical danger in seeker-
friendly sermons and seeker-services. In our desire for ‘relevance’ and
‘interest’ we may minimise the call to “repent, believe and be baptised,
everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
sins” (Acts 2:38). Certainly, we need to begin where people are, but
then we need to point them down the narrow way, which is demanding
and difficult, but that leads to life eternal. This, surely, is the goal: Not
just that we fill our churches with seekers but that they “may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing...have life
in his name” (John 20:30). Even then our task is not completed – for
we must teach them to obey everything Jesus has commanded
(Matthew 28:20) so that “we may present everyone perfect in Christ”
(Colossians 1:28).
Words and Language
Using the right language is also an important part of effective

communication. A sermon full of cliches is difficult to comprehend; we

need to avoid jargon and work hard to speak in everyday language.
We must use words and terms people can understand. The preaching
of the Puritans was plain and easily understood. It was their aim to
“think like great men, but speak like common people.”125 This does not
mean that their preaching was dull. Far from it. Their plain speech
made their preaching lively and direct. Rather than make a good
impression they wanted to preach to the hearts of those listening.
Lewis quotes the Puritan John Flavel who made this point:
A crucified style best suits the preachers of a crucified Christ.... Prudence will
choose words that are solid, rather than florid: as a merchant will [choose] a
ship by a sound bottom, and capacious hold, rather than a gilded head and
stern. Words are but servants to matter. An iron key, fitted to the wards of the
lock, is more useful than a golden one that will not open the door to the
treasures.... Prudence will cast away a thousand fine words for one that is apt
to penetrate the conscience and reach the heart.126
We ought to aim for simplicity and clarity in our speech and language
so as to communicate the gospel as plainly as possible.
Having said this we must also teach our congregations to
understand the language of the Scriptures including biblical terms such
as justification, righteousness, atonement and redemption. Every
human activity has its own language and words peculiar to that
context. Anyone who is serious about knowing the truth of the
Christian faith must understand the terms and language of the Bible.
So we ought to use such terms in our preaching while also explaining
their meaning.
As well as using everyday language we must also speak in a normal
tone of voice. In times past it was not uncommon for the preacher to
speak with a “stained glass” voice. For the unbeliever this only
highlighted the apparent distance between the listener and the
preacher, between his world and the world of the Church.
88 Feed My Sheep
CONCLUSION: PREACHING THE WORD TO THE WORLD
Preaching has many opponents. They argue that this means of

communicating the gospel has been superseded by more modern
technological methods. The church is better served, they argue, by
livelier and more attractive techniques. They maintain that preaching
has no authority today and commands no respect. Furthermore, they
believe preaching is irrelevant and does not speak to the real needs of
people.
In opposition to these critics I believe that God commands pastors
to “preach the Word” and that this is the primary task of the minister
of the gospel. God has blessed such preaching in the past and will
continue to do so in the present. Faithful expository preaching will
always produce a reaction in those who hear: They will either respond
in repentance and faith or turn away in hardness of heart and unbelief.
Those who respond find that the Word of God is relevant to their
present and eternal needs. The task of the preacher is to apply the
Scriptures to those who hear, demonstrating how this ancient book has
specific and contemporary application to their lives. To do this
effectively the preacher must understand these postmodern times. The
church needs men who, knowing both the world around them and the
Christ above them, are able to proclaim the Word of Christ to the
world. We need preachers who are able to see through modernity and
postmodernity, who understand how pluralism and secularism work
and who are able to “preach with passion the truth of God’s Word,
reflecting on that truth and seeking out the points at which it intersects
with modern life.”127 Our aim is to preach the “old, old story” so that
it speaks with power, relevance and clarity to our modern listener.
89
90 Feed My Sheep
91
PART II
UNDERSTANDING
OUR
NEW ZEALAND
CONTEXT
92 Feed My Sheep
93
Chapter 1
A GENERAL HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Many who analyse our times believe that we are in a time of significant
transition. “A massive intellectual revolution is taking place”, claims
Diogenes Allen, Professor of Philosophy at Princeton Theological
Seminary, “which is perhaps as great as that which marked off the
modern world from the Middle Ages. The foundations of the modern
world are collapsing and we are entering a postmodern world.”128
Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon are even bolder. In their book
Resident Aliens, they begin by claiming that the new era has already
arrived: “Sometime between 1960 and 1980, an old, inadequately
conceived world ended, and a fresh, new world began.”129 These two
opinions are representative of many commentators who draw
attention to the significance of this period. But these times are also
troubled. The evidence for this is glaringly obvious given the increase
in crime, the high rate of divorce, the general instability of
relationships, the widespread collapse of the family and the loss of
honesty and trust in society.
Those of us called to preach at this time must be like the men of
Issachar, “who understood the times and knew what Israel should do”
(1 Chronicles 12:32). To be like this requires an understanding of
history. C.S. Lewis drew our attention to this some time ago:
Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any
magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set
against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different
in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely
contemporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived
by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is
therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from
the press and the microphone of his age.130
To understand these times requires an appreciation of past times;
94 Feed My Sheep
what happened in history has shaped what is happening now. To get

our bearings we must not only look at our New Zealand history but we
must also look further back to see where we have come from. The
history of Western civilisation can be divided into three main periods:
Premodern, modern and postmodern.
PREMODERN (Before 1700 AD)
A defining feature of the premodern Western period is that people

believed in the supernatural. Most people in the cultures, nations and
empires of the ancient world believed in many gods, while the nation
of Israel, the early Christians, and later on the Muslims, believed that
there was only one God. Whether polytheistic or monotheistic, the
people in ancient cultures believed that the world originated from God
(or the gods) and that there was a spiritual realm beyond the senses.131
Within this general supernatural understanding of the world there were
three main views of religion. One arose out of the biblical revelation
given to the Old Testament people of Israel. Another, mythological
paganism, had its roots in the animistic nature religions of primitive
cultures. Finally, there was the classical rationalism of the ancient
Greeks developed by outstanding philosophers such as Plato and
Aristotle.132
For now our focus will be on the biblical revelation. The Bible’s
story begins with the creation of the world by God and the revelation
of his will to Adam and Eve. They, however, disobeyed his command.
Adam, through his position as the representative of all who would
follow him, brought all of humanity into sin. God, in his electing
purpose and mercy, called Abraham and established a binding
relationship with him and with the nation that would come from him,
a relationship the Scriptures call a “covenant”. Throughout Israel’s
history God continued to reveal himself “through the prophets at
many times and in various ways” (Hebrews 1:1) all the time promising
a Saviour who was yet to come. Eventually, in the “fullness of time”,
A General Historical Overview 95
God the Father sent his Son. Jesus came to make the Father known
(John 1:18), to do his will and to speak his words. He was the complete
and final revelation of God’s character and law,133 the fulfilment of all
the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament, and the One who
came to save his people from their sins. In obedience to his Father’s will
he died for the sins of his people and then rose from the dead and
ascended into heaven to take his place as Lord of the universe. He left
his disciples on earth to be his witnesses and to continue the work of
establishing his kingdom.
The early church began witnessing with great zeal. The power to do
this came from the Holy Spirit poured out on them by the ascended
and glorified Lord Jesus. Overcoming a reluctance to disperse beyond
Jerusalem the Spirit forced the early believers out of the city by means
of persecution. As they scattered they “preached the word wherever
they went” (Acts 8:4). In addition to the personal evangelism of these
individual lay Christians there was the witness of deacons, such as
Philip, and the missionary work of the Apostles. Peter preached the
gospel to the Jews while Paul, Silas and Barnabas, sent by the church,
took the good news to the Gentiles.
Under the blessing of God Christianity spread rapidly through the
Roman empire. The Apostle Paul preached the gospel in the cities of
Asia Minor and Macedonia. Eventually he was taken to Rome, the
capital of the empire. Despite his house arrest he preached the
kingdom of God and taught about Jesus “boldly and without
hindrance” (Acts 28:30-31). It has been estimated that by the end of
the third century the number of Christians had reached 10-12 million,
or roughly a tenth of the total population of the Roman Empire.134
Despite this remarkable growth Christian influence was moral, not
political. Christians, for the first three centuries, were a powerless and
often persecuted minority. They witnessed to the Roman Empire
through their love for one another, their perseverance under
persecution and their courage in the face of death.
A significant change took place in 313 AD. Constantine, ruler of the
Roman Empire, gave formal recognition to the Christian faith. He
96 Feed My Sheep
became fully supportive of the church, calling councils of bishops,

building churches and financing the copying of Bibles. The number of
Christians grew from a mere ten percent of the population to form a
majority, although many of these were nominal in their faith. The
Roman Empire became a ‘Christian’ empire. For the next 1500 years
in Europe Christians were a powerful majority influencing all of life and
culture including government, art, music, education and architecture.
Christianity was closely identified with European thought and culture.
This whole period (from 313 until the 1960’s) has been described as
the era of Christendom – literally, “the domain of Christ”. Certainly
there were challenges to the Christian world view, such as the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and there were many who did
not believe or who opposed the Christian faith. Yet through this entire
period most of the people took the existence of God as self-evident,
accepted the vital role of the church, and believed in the certainty of a
day of judgement and the reality of heaven and hell.
This Christian influence in Europe was extended through the work
of Christian missionaries. Earnest missionary endeavours were
undertaken by Patrick to Ireland in 432. Later, in 536, Columba took
the gospel from Ireland to Scotland. In 590 Pope Gregory sent Prior
Augustine with forty monks from Italy to England, and in 690 Willibord
went from England to the Frisian Islands (Netherlands and Northern
Germany). One of the outstanding missionaries of these ‘Dark Ages’
was Boniface who, in 732, went from England to Germany where he
had a very successful mission work. Subsequent mission into Saxony
and Scandinavia spread the Christian faith still further in Europe so
that by the end of the first millennium much of Western Europe had
heard the gospel.135
As the church grew in influence and numbers it was assumed that
everyone was part of the church. The more the church expanded in
Europe the more its ministry became pastoral rather than evangelistic.
The church “saw its task as preserving the peace, upholding the God-
given social order, calling nobles and peasants to their godly duties
and responsibilities, teaching the faith to each new generation,
encouraging the wholeness of life and character.”136

Despite the dominance of the Christian world-view there was a
serious weakness in Christendom in that the theologians of the
medieval church attempted to combine two opposing world-views, ie.
biblical revelation and Greek philosophy. These theologians looked
back to the classical rationalism of the ancient Greeks to aid their
understanding of the Bible. The supreme example of this medieval
scholasticism is Thomas Aquinas who attempted to read the Bible in
the light of Greek philosophy. He used the ideas of Aristotle to come up
with a massive synthesis of Biblical truth and Greek thought. The
scholastics may be commended for their desire to maintain the unity of
truth, but they put too much confidence in human reason and the truth
discovered by unbelieving philosophers. Scholastic theology
“subordinated the Bible to Aristotelian logic, sacrificing the purity of
biblical revelation.”137 This, however, was not the only problem in the
medieval church.
As the church grew in power the temptations associated with this
also grew. Many succumbed. Increasingly, the church was plagued by
corruption, nepotism, greed, indolence, ignorance and error.
Individuals and groups concerned about the abuses in the church
spoke out. Examples include the Waldensians and the Cistercians,
both of the twelfth century, led by Peter Waldo and St Bernard of
Clairvaux respectively. We have already noted the protest of the great
English preacher, John Wycliffe, in the fourteenth century, and that of
John Hus in the early fifteenth century. Sometimes the church took
note and made efforts at reform; at other times the voices of protest
were crushed.
By the late Middle Ages many in Europe were eager for change.
They found a spokesman in Martin Luther. Luther had been struggling
to find peace for his own soul but had been unable to gain this through
the doctrines taught by the church. Penance, ritual prayers,
indulgences and the life of the monastery did not offer him the
forgiveness he desperately longed for. His position as professor of
biblical studies at the University of Wittenberg gave him opportunity to
98 Feed My Sheep
lecture on the Psalms, Galatians and Romans. Through his close study
of the Scriptures he came to understand that a sinner is not justified by
good works made possible through an infused righteousness; rather,
the sinner is justified by a righteousness imputed by God on the basis
of Christ’s death on the cross. This came as a great light to him.
I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace
and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be
reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of
Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the “justice of God” had
filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love.
This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven.”138
From this insight the Reformation was born. The emphases of the
Reformation were summed up in the Latin slogans of the time: Sola
Scriptura (Scripture Alone), Sola Fide (Faith Alone), and Sola Gratia
(Grace Alone). Men and women who believed these truths were
prepared to die for their convictions and many did. Biblical reformed
truth was preached from pulpits, defended in books, expounded in
confessions, taught in catechisms, demonstrated in life and in death.
MODERN (1700-1960s)139
The Reformers placed God in the centre of all of life believing that
everything should be guided by his revelation in the Scriptures and
done for his glory. They believed firmly in the supernatural. The
thinkers of the Enlightenment, however, deliberately and forcefully
rejected God and took their stand on human ability and reason. Belief
in the supernatural had already been challenged in the premodern era
with the Renaissance movement of the mid to late 1400s. Renaissance
scholars went back to their classical sources and rediscovered the
rationalistic philosophy of the Greeks. The Renaissance exalted
human reason and achievement and placed man, rather than God, at
the centre of all things. This trend toward rationalism and humanism
was checked by the Reformation but came to a high point in the
eighteenth century Enlightenment (c.1650-1780).
Rationalism did not reject religion entirely, not at first anyway.
Rather it refashioned Christianity into a rational religion called Deism.
Deists believed in God but regarded him as a distant figure. According
to their thinking he made the world, giving it order and system, but
then withdrew leaving it to run on its own like a vast machine. He did
not, they held, reveal himself to mankind, nor did he step into creation
to perform miracles. God, according to the Deists, was not actively
involved in his world.
It was not long, however, before people realised that they did not
need such a God. Why believe in a God who was not active or
involved in his creation? In a short time God was replaced by science
and human reason. The scientific world view of the time, with its
confidence in experimentation and the sure results of the scientific
method, contributed to the decline in a belief in God. The world was
seen as a closed system of cause and effect. Everything could be
explained from within the system. Enlightenment thinkers substituted
the medieval faith in God with a science and ethics based solely on
human rationality. This radical change of direction was initiated by
Descartes with his famous statement, cogito ergo sum, “I think
therefore I am.”140 What was novel was not the emphasis on human
reason, for this had been a feature of the Aristotelian tradition of the
pre-modern period, but rather, the complete isolation of the human
mind from any accepted body of truth, revelation or religious faith.
According to the modern mind-set knowledge was to be found within
the structures of human rationality and by the processes of the human
mind. The modern period was built on the assumption that the human
mind could understand all of reality unaided by faith or a belief in God.
For several centuries after this science and philosophy were used to
exclude even the possibility of God. To illustrate the attitude to
Christianity in the modern era Diogenes Allen quotes Max Muller, a
distinguished anthropologist, who in 1878 wrote;
100 Feed My Sheep
Every day, every week, every month, every quarter, the most widely read
journals seem just now to vie with each other in telling us that the time for
religion is past, that faith is a hallucination or an infantile disease, that the gods
have at last been found out and exploded.”141
This atheism was not confined to the journals and the universities but
was being increasingly extended to the man in the street.142
Running parallel to these trends was another trend in theology that
reinforced what was happening in philosophy and science.
Theologians in the modern period were profoundly influenced by the
rationalism of the Enlightenment and adopted what we now describe
as a ‘Liberal’ position. They were embarrassed by the ‘pre-scientific
world-view’ of the Bible and wanted to make the Scriptures fit into the
modern scientific view, thus rendering them more ‘believable’ and
‘acceptable’ to modern man. To those following the viewpoint of
Higher Criticism it was clear that Moses could not have written the
Pentateuch, nor could God have revealed all these laws to Israel –
rather, all this was the fruit of the evolution of their religion. It seemed
plain that Jesus could not have been God; that the virgin birth was an
impossibility; that there were scientific explanations for all the miracles;
that the resurrection of Jesus was the result of the wishful thinking of
the disciples; and that the record in the gospels was the interpretation
of the early church and not the actual record of the deeds and words
of Jesus. These theologians and preachers of the liberal ‘church’ have
given modern people less and less to believe. It used to take courage
to be an atheist and to assert your disbelief in God. Now liberal
theologians have done the atheist’s work – they have cut out all that
was supernatural, demythologised all that was difficult to accept for
scientific people and accommodated Christian belief to the ideas of the
age.143 There is hardly anything left to disbelieve.144
In rejecting God Enlightenment thinkers also rejected his laws as
revealed in the Bible. Consequently they had to find another
foundation for morality. Rather than basing it on religion they
attempted to base it on reason. Using reason alone they tried to show

“that some things are wrong in nearly all circumstances, that to
become a moral person is of supreme importance for an individual and
society, and that moral behaviour is objective and not a matter of
individual choice nor relative to society.”145 This modern ethic
originated with Emmanuel Kant and his “categorical imperative”. He
believed that if an individual thought clearly then he would come up
with the right action and that this would be a universal principle any
other rational human person would apply in the same situation. For
Kant, being moral was a matter of being more human, that is, more
rational.146 This rational basis for morality made ethical decisions a
matter of individual choice or the collective choices of individuals, ie.
majority opinion. Modern men, however, were left without any basis
for deciding disputes between people who disagreed about what was
right or wrong, except that one person was more or less rational than
the other. In adopting a rational foundation for morality the
Enlightenment lost an objective basis for deciding between good and
evil. Morality became pragmatic – a deed is good if it works well; or
utilitarian – a deed is good if it makes the system run more smoothly;
or situational – a deed is good if it is guided by the overriding principle
of love.
The Enlightenment offered a philosophical challenge to
Christendom and contributed to a declining influence of Christians in
society generally. In Western Europe Christians had been at the centre
of political and cultural life. As Enlightenment ideas took hold a
Christian influence diminished. The development of the American
colonies and of European colonisation took the Christian faith to new
lands and loosened the connection between Christianity and
European culture. A break between church and state was formalised
by the two major revolutions of this time: The American
Revolutionaries wrote up their creed in the Constitution of 1789 which
clearly separated the roles of church and state,147 while the French
Revolution of 1789 forcibly removed Christians from political
influence (as did the Russian Revolution of 1917).148 These were early
102 Feed My Sheep
examples of a general tendency to edge the church out of the centre of

society and culture. This has continued throughout the modern period
until today. Now, the church in the western world and in New Zealand
finds itself out on the fringes of public life. It has no favoured status. Its
voice is just one voice among many in our pluralistic world.
The trend to discard God and sideline the church was reinforced in
the nineteenth century by the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin,
explained in his work, The Origin of the Species (first published in
1859). His ideas seemed to offer a credible alternative to belief in a
Creator God. In time this theory came to have the status of scientific
fact and, in the modern period in the western world, became the
dominant explanation for the origin of the world and of mankind.
Evolution was a creature of its age – it would not have gained
acceptance without the groundwork having been laid in the ideas of
the Enlightenment. Darwin’s theory strengthened the atheism of this
era and cemented the idea that God was superfluous. “The origin of
the species” could be entirely explained within the closed system –
science could account for everything. Modern theologians, living in
this age of science, reinterpreted the creation account of Genesis in the
light of modern evolutionary ‘fact’.
Western societies born out of the Enlightenment and the theory of
evolution began their new life with high hopes for the future and
confident rhetoric about what they would achieve. Reason, they
proclaimed, would give people access to sure and certain knowledge.
Through reason humans would “understand the cosmos, establish
social peace and improve their condition.”149 People of the
Enlightenment wanted to master the earth for the benefit of humanity.
They believed that through rational management and technology they
could improve the quality of life and create a better world. The
American Declaration of Independence (1776) is evidence of the high
ideals that marked the modern period; “We hold these Truths to be
self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This is an example of the
positive Enlightenment view of the world. Modern Americans were

supremely optimistic about their future and their freedom in their new
land.
To be sure, the modern world has made great achievements and
significant improvements in many areas. We can thank modernity for
liberty in politics, in economics and in conscience. Other benefits
include better health, longer life expectancy, more mobility, instant
communications and an improved standard of living. Despite these
great advances, confidence in the ability of man and his reason has
been badly shaken. In his Templeton Prize Address Michael Novak
noted that modernity
has been spectacularly wrong in its underlying philosophy of life. An age wrong
about God is almost certain to be wrong about man... Modernity tore down the
only philosophical foundations that can sustain the free society.... If you stay
within your own school of thought, the foundations of the free society seem
secure. Peek outside, however, and you will hear the raucous voices shouting.
The Age of Enlightenment has failed to secure a mode of public moral
argument worthy of the institutions it has erected.”150
The fruit of modern beliefs has become more apparent as this century
has unfolded and as the influence of Christianity has waned. Having
abandoned Biblical revelation no other world view has been able to
give meaning or direction to our twentieth century Western world. In
the Enlightenment perspective there was no real basis for morality and
there was no way to hold back the spiral into evil, corruption and
crime. Evolution, science and technology and their ideas of inevitable
progress were challenged as people failed to find solutions to the
problems of pollution, racism and poverty. Two world wars and the
Great Depression shook people’s confidence in the innate goodness of
the human person and shattered hopes of a western utopia. Despite
the optimism of the modern period the terrible events of this century
have dashed the great hopes people had. “What we got was not self-
freedom but self-centredness, loneliness, superficiality, and harried
104 Feed My Sheep
consumerism. Free is not how many of our citizens feel – with our
overstocked medicine cabinets, burglar alarms, vast ghettos, and drug
culture.”151 On an overall assessment, the Enlightenment has failed.
Thomas Oden believes we are seeing the end of modernity and that
the strength of its four dominant motifs – autonomous individualism,
narcissistic hedonism, reductive naturalism, and absolute moral
relativism – are rapidly diminishing.152 Others are not as confident that
we have seen the end of modernity. Diogenes Allen cautions that not
everyone can clearly see that we are in a new situation because the
dust from the collapse of the modern mentality has not yet settled.153
Modernist assumptions continue to form the basis of scientific
endeavour and are still guiding liberal theology. The Enlightenment
opinion that science and religion are opposed to each other lingers on,
as does the idea that religion is outdated and only for the weak and
ignorant. Hedonism and relativism continue to direct people’s
behaviour. We should not underestimate the residue of the
Enlightenment.154
Just as the modern world was anticipated in the pre-modern period
by the renaissance, so too the postmodern world has had its
forerunners in the modern period. Postmodernity was anticipated with
the movements of romanticism and existentialism. Romanticism
appeared in the early nineteenth century as a reaction away from the
Enlightenment. It replaced the emphasis on reason with an emphasis
on human emotion. Rather than believing that God is far away and
removed from the world it believed he was intimately involved in
creation. Some went so far as to identify God with nature and with the
self. If people could get in touch with their feelings and intensely
experience all of life they could become “one with nature” and achieve
unity with the life force that pervades all of reality.155 Wordsworth’s
famous poem, Lines Composed a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey
illustrates this sentiment. After quiet reflections on the beauty of the
countryside he writes:
Nor less, I trust,

To them I may have owed another gift,

Of aspect more sublime; that blessed mood,
In which the burthen of the mystery,
In which the heavy and the weary weight
Of all this unintelligible world,
Is lightened – that serene and blessed mood,
In which the affections gently lead us on –
Until, the breath of this corporeal frame
And even the motion of our human blood
Almost suspended, we are laid asleep
In body, and become a living soul;
While with an eye made quiet by the power
Of harmony, and the deep power of joy,
We see into the life of things.156
In this poem nature not only has the power to relax and quiet him
when he was troubled, but it also has a spiritual power enabling him to
“become a living soul” and giving him the discernment to “see into the
life of things”. These ideas anticipated the pantheism evident in the
New Age movement of these postmodern times. “Romanticism
cultivated subjectivity, personal experience, irrationalism, and intense
emotion. It encouraged introspection and attention of the inner life.”157
Another reaction to the rationalism and resulting materialism of the
Enlightenment was existentialism, which reached its peak in the
middle of the twentieth century. It arose as a despairing response to
fascism and World War II and was especially strong in France with
philosophers such as Satre and Camus. They came to the conclusion
that if there is no God, and if we are at the mercy of the inexorable laws
of nature, or even worse, of absurdity or nothingness, then there is no
meaning or purpose to life. Existentialist philosophers came to the
same assessment as the Teacher in Ecclesiastes when he surveyed all
of life apart from God. “Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly
meaningless! Everything is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). The
Preacher, however, eventually came to see life from the perspective of
the Creator and saw that when a person knows God there is meaning
106 Feed My Sheep
and purpose to life: “I know that there is nothing better than for men
to be happy and do good while they live. That every man may eat and
drink, and find satisfaction in his toil – this is the gift of God. I know that
everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it
and nothing taken away from it. God does it, so men will revere him”
(Ecclesiastes 3:12-14). Existentialists, however, did not come to this
clarity of mind. Since the world was meaningless they believed they
had to create their own meaning. They believed they could do this by
their own individual choices – by making their own decisions in the
face of a futile and empty existence. The French existentialists tried
honestly and to the best of their ability to face the truth about man, and
to do this without hope. In Albert Camus’ novel, The Plague, the main
character, Doctor Rieux, reflects on his experience in fighting the
plague in the city; “...all a man could win in the conflict between plague
and life was knowledge and memories... how hard it must be to live
only with what one knows and what one remembers, cut off from what
one hopes for!”158 What counts in this situation is doing one’s duty;
“there’s no question of heroes in all this. It’s a matter of common
decency. That’s an idea which may make some people smile, but the
only means of fighting a plague is – common decency.”159 This is an
admirable and yet tragic response. We can admire such devotion to
duty and the desire to help one’s fellow man. But it is tragic that there
is nothing more than duty in his service for others – no grace, no God
and no hope. Existentialism anticipated the relativism and pluralism of
these times. You must create your own meaning in life, they claimed;
the meaning you choose is valid for you; you cannot impose your
meaning on anyone else. This approach was applied to religion, ethics
and truth: Every religion is valid; you are free to do and live as you
please; you must believe what is true for you. All of these ideas have
come to their full expression in our postmodern days.
POSTMODERN (post 1960s)
Despite the challenges presented by the Enlightenment, Romanticism

and Existentialism, the Christian faith continued to exert a strong
influence on the western world throughout this time. People lived and
worked against the general background of a belief in God, some
knowledge of the Bible, and the restraining influence of the ten
commandments as the basis for morality. These Biblical assumptions,
however, were being undermined by the philosophical movements of
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Furthermore, the strength of
Christianity was being drained by theological liberalism.
The chickens of the Renaissance and Enlightenment came home to
roost in the 1960s. This was a significant and revolutionary decade in
which young people questioned modern civilisation and its reasoned
outlook, regimentation and confidence in technology. They revived
the romanticism of the early nineteenth century with its focus on
getting in touch with your feelings and with nature. Young people
experimented with drugs, threw off traditional rules and restrictions,
and pursued pleasure with abandon. In this decade the philosophy
and ethics of the Enlightenment come to practical expression. As the
certainty of modernity came to an end people were less and less
restrained by any traditional morality and more and more open to a
moral relativism. People reasoned that if there was no God then they
could do as they pleased without the restraint of the laws of God or of
human society. Consequently many cast off the traditional Christian
ethic and conformity to what was culturally acceptable and felt free to
do their own thing. The 1970s continued this trend with an emphasis
on self-fulfilment, a meeting-my-needs philosophy, and self-esteem.
People were consumed by materialism and expected to be able to
‘have it all’. The selfishness of this decade has been captured in the
phrase, the ‘me generation’.160 This self-centeredness continued in the
1980s, although with a slight change of emphasis – a ‘greed is good’
philosophy.161 Not much has changed in the ‘money generation’162 of
the 1990s; as a more market-driven economy has been exploited by
108 Feed My Sheep
human selfishness and greed producing an excessive interest in

making money and displays of excessive consumption.
All these descriptions of the decades are generalisations because
trends do not usually fall into neat and tidy ten year patterns. This is
also true of the following analysis by Ian Grant who describes what
people have lost over the past five decades. In the 1950s, he says,
people lost their innocence; in the 1960s they lost their trust in
authority; in the 1970s they lost their love and replaced it with lust; in
the 1980s they lost their hope; and in the 1990s they lost their respect.
Whether these losses happened at these times, or in this order, is
debatable, yet this highlights all that has been squandered over the last
fifty years. It also illustrates the basic selfishness of people. This is
especially obvious at the present time with the emphasis on self-
expression, self-preservation and self-fulfilment. Many in our society
are absorbed in a quest to find themselves, to develop their full
potential, to achieve their personal growth, to enlarge their mind
power. This self-absorption is the logical outcome of the
Enlightenment but it stands in marked contrast to the Christian ethic
which call us to deny ourselves, to take up our cross and to follow
Jesus.
Having passed through modernity our western society has rejected
the revelation of the Christian world view and the rationality of the
modern era. Christians are not in a majority position any longer. Our
mission field as Christians in New Zealand is not only far away across
the seas but is also at our own doorstep. The Christian world view is not
predominant in this country, or in the Western world generally. In fact,
no one view dominates. Our world is a melting pot, not only racially,
but also philosophically. In this postmodern period we are reaping
what has been sown philosophically in the Enlightenment and
theologically in liberalism. The cement of faith has been dissolved in
the traditionally Christian societies and nations.163 In these last few
decades we are seeing the fruit of the past few centuries in which
philosophers, theologians and the man in the street have turned their
back on God and his Word; we are seeing the consequences of a
rejection of God the Creator. Thomas Oden puts it forcefully when he

writes;
The party is over for the hedonic sexual revolution of the period from the sexy
’60s to the gay ’90s. The party crasher is sexually transmitted diseases, with
AIDS leading the way. We are now having to learn to live with the
consequences of the sexual, interpersonal, and familial wreckage to which this
narcissistic money-grubbing, lust-enslaved, porn-infested, abortive self-
indulgence has led us. Its interpersonal fruits are friendlessness, disaffection,
divorce, and the despairing substitution of sexual experimentation for
intimacy.164
The term used to describe this confusing and confused time in which
we live is ‘postmodernism’. Yet the term itself is just as confusing and
difficult to define. “Is it a hip word for the trendy and novel? A grab-bag
term for everything after the modern? ...Is it a philosophy, a school, a
mood, a nostalgia, a reaction, a sales fashion?”165 One thing is clear:
Postmodernism is a rejection of modernism, of the Enlightenment
project, of absolutes and objectivity, and of the assumption that the
Truth can be grasped by our human reason. Os Guinness sums up the
contrasts well;
Where modernism was a manifesto of human self-confidence and self-

congratulation, postmodernism is a confession of modesty, if not despair.
There is no truth, only truths. There are no principles, only preferences. There
is no grand reason, only reasons. There is no privileged civilisation (or culture,
beliefs, norms, and styles), only a multiplicity of cultures, beliefs, periods, and
styles. There is no universal justice, only interest and the competition of interest
groups. There is no grand narrative of human progress, only countless stories
of where people and their cultures are now. There is no simple reality or any
grand objectivity of universal, detached knowledge, only a ceaseless
representation of everything in terms of everything else.166
Modernism asked the question, “Is there a God?”, and responded in

the negative. Postmodernism asks the question, “Which God?”167 and
responds with a multitude of voices, all saying different things. This has
110 Feed My Sheep
led some to conclude that the defining feature of our present situation
is the loss of a meta-narrative – there is no grand story that holds
everything together, no unifying Truth to which we can all subscribe.
Now everyone has their own story to tell and their own truth to
trumpet. The novelty of our present situation can be summed up in the
following contrasts:
! Premoderns believed that we can only know truth if we assume

the existence of God; modernism claimed to be able to under-
stand all truth through logical analysis apart from any reference to
God; and postmodernism rejects even the concept of truth.
! The premodern people of Christendom believed right and wrong

were given by revelation from God; moderns believed that people
determined what was right or wrong; postmoderns say there is no
good or right or wrong.
! Premodern people with a pagan and classical world-view were

often fatalistic about their lives and were encouraged to simply
accept whatever came their way, while people in Christian Eu-
rope believed that their lives were ordered by the providence of
God; Moderns believed they could order the world themselves
through science and the application of the scientific method and
so solve all our problems; postmodernism is sceptical of this
claim.
What has been called ‘postmodernism’ may be seen as “a total

repudiation of modernism,”168 or as the final consequence and
outworking of modernism. Thomas Oden prefers the term
‘ultramodern’ to describe the desperate despair of the final throes of
modernity.169 Postmodernism is modernism carried to its final
conclusions and the consequent rejection of that position. Yet, as we
noted earlier, we should not be too quick to assume that now
everything is postmodern. The set of ideas we call modernism may
have collapsed but not everyone realises this. Many people are still
operating with a scientific Enlightenment way of thinking. It will be
some time before everyone catches up with the new situation and for
these ideas to filter through to the man in the street. We also need to
realise that the structure of modernity – as a system – is still going
strong. Modernity is the product of deep-seated structures including
capitalism, industrialised technology and telecommunications. These
structures and all their effects continue on today.170
The postmodern attack on modernity is right in many respects. It
was arrogant of moderns to claim they could understand the world
without reference to God. Postmodernists are correct in their critique of
rationality and its claim to understand the world in purely scientific
terms. They have rightly pointed out that human reason is an
inadequate basis for ethics. We can applaud their emphasis on the
spiritual dimension to the human person and to life. Christians,
however, should be wary of being too joyful over the collapse of
modernism because its substitute, postmodernism, brings its own
problems and is just as threatening to the church. We need to take a
close look at postmodernism and its challenges and opportunities. I
want to examine these in the context of our New Zealand culture. In
order to do that we need to familiarise ourselves, not only with the
history of Western thought, but also with our short history as a nation.
112 Feed My Sheep
Chapter 2
THE INFLUENCE OF
CHRISTIANITY
IN NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand’s Christian history began in 1814 with the arrival of the
first missionaries from the Church Missionary Society of the Church of
England. Samuel Marsden arrived in the Bay of Islands from
Parramatta, Australia, a few days before Christmas. On Christmas Day
he led the first service for the Maori inhabitants preaching on Luke
2:10, “Behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy.” It is worth noting
that the first mission work in New Zealand was done through
preaching, and that the first subject was the good news about the Lord
Jesus Christ. Initially the mission work did not go well, due to
unsuitable personnel and the European traders already working in the
country. Sealers and whalers had left Europe as adventurers and, on
the whole, were “not particularly pious.”171 They did not respond well
to the appeal of the missionaries to set a good example for the Maori
people. In 1823, however, a sound beginning was made with the
arrival of Rev Henry Williams who, two years later, was joined by his
younger brother, William. A steady stream of missionaries arrived
during the 1820s and 1830s. They developed a generally good
relationship with the Maoris, established schools and preached the
gospel. The missionaries were well respected and their initial work
amongst the Maoris resulted in many conversions.172 They did not
favour large-scale settlement as they believed this would be
detrimental to the Maori. Such settlement would pressure the Maori to
give up their land and, they believed, would have a negative effect on
their way of life and livelihood. The missionaries supported the Treaty
of Waitangi because of the protection it offered to the Maori people.
Organised European settlement began in the 1840s with most of
the immigrants coming from England. This shaped New Zealand’s
The Influence of Christianity in New Zealand 113
cultural and religious life, although, as we will see, other immigrant

groups have been influential in the religious character of the nation. To
help us understand our situation today, especially the secular
character of contemporary New Zealand, we need to note some
characteristics of this English immigration. The first point to notice was
a desire to avoid the religious controversies of England.
THE DESIRE TO AVOID DENOMINATIONAL CONTROVERSY
The majority of English immigrants to New Zealand claimed allegiance

to the Church of England. Their views were shaped by the history and
character of that denomination. At the time of the Reformation the
Anglican church had opted for a middle way between the perceived
extremes of Calvinism on the one side and Roman Catholicism on the
other. England had been torn by religious conflicts in the three reigns
before Elizabeth I and the English people were tired of fighting and
extremes and wanted a peaceful settlement. Elizabeth I (1558-1603)
brought about the desired, moderate religious peace by adopting a
middle way between the Reformed Protestantism of Europe and
Roman Catholicism. Through the English Parliament she re-
introduced the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI and, in 1563,
adopted the Thirty Nine Articles. These Articles were clearly Protestant
in their formulation of doctrine but moderate in their statement. The
English Reformation sought to bring the warring parties together by
affirming a Protestant position without being too precise on doctrinal
and liturgical matters. This attitude was carried over into New Zealand.
Yet there was another influence at work as well. From the very
beginning the English settlement of New Zealand was marked by “a
deliberate determination to avoid religious controversy, rivalry and the
dominance of the church in the affairs of the nation.”173 This attitude
was a reaction to the competition in England between denominations
and the rivalry for funding of education through church schools. Other
denominations were envious of the privileged position of the Church
114 Feed My Sheep
of England. The influence of this attitude can be seen in our public

education system. In 1877 the Education Act provided for a schooling
that was to be “free, compulsory and secular”. “Secular” did not mean
non-religious as we understand the term today, but rather meant non-
denominational, illustrating the desire of the nation’s leaders to avoid
conflict between the churches.174 This attitude is also seen in the
decision of the first Parliament, meeting on 26 May 1854, to open their
proceedings with prayer. After some debate the following motion was
passed; “That in proceeding to carry out the resolution of the House to
open its proceedings with prayer, the House distinctly asserts the
privilege of a perfect political equality in all religious denominations,
and that, whoever may be called upon to perform this duty for the
House, it is not thereby intended to confer or admit any pre-eminence
to that Church or religious body to which he may belong.”175 A
majority of the members of the House clearly wanted to avoid
favouring one denomination over another.
The influence of this perspective has stifled a firm Christian witness
and has contributed to the secular character of our society. The ability
of each denomination or local congregation to speak on matters of
morality and public life is severely curtailed when they can only speak
about matters on which they agree with every other church. A lowest-
common-denominator approach to religious issues inevitably
weakens the witness of the wider church because the expression of its
faith will be muted. If each denomination and minister may only speak
about issues that have the concurrence of every other denomination
and minister they will have little influence in public life.
Today the public and political statements of the mainline
denominations are usually humanitarian rather than distinctively
biblical and reflect a general social concern rather than a clear
Christian statement. For instance, in 1998, on the eve of the budget,
the General Synod of the Anglican Church launched a nationwide
ecumenical march on Parliament to protest about “the intolerable
levels of poverty and social breakdown in New Zealand.”176 Rather
than speaking about guilt before a holy God or about the need for faith
in Christ the symbolic walk concentrated on the creation of jobs, the

public health system, wage and benefit levels, and affordable
education. The concerns of the church have blended with the concerns
of the general population. This, I believe, has its roots in the moderate
church settlement of the Church of England and in the desire to avoid
denominational controversy.
Another factor contributing to New Zealand’s secular character has
been the nature of English immigration.
THE PATTERN OF IMMIGRATION
Here again we need to look at developments in the Church of England

following the Reformation because these have shaped New Zealand’s
religious history. The revival that took place in the 1740s under the
preaching of Whitefield was followed by another period of decline
through the nineteenth century. “The middle decades of the last
century in England show a steady falling away from church life and
from Christian faith... by the middle of the nineteenth century the
working classes were secularists, largely disconnected from the
church.”177 Those who were church-goers came from the English
middle classes, but they had little reason to immigrate to New Zealand
and few did. Most of those who emigrated came from the rural poor
and the lower class in the industrialised cities who were already
distanced from the church. In view of this immigration pattern it is
hardly surprising that church attendance figures in New Zealand in the
late 1800s were significantly lower than in England for the same
period. “Once the habit of church going had been broken, it was not
easily reformed. Even habitual church goers had to put forth more
effort to go to church in a thinly peopled country where churches were
few.”178 Between 1871 and 1911 the percentage of New Zealanders
attending church out of the total population varied between 23-30%.
By contrast, church attendance in England in 1851 by those over ten
years of age was estimated to be between 47-51% of the population.179
116 Feed My Sheep
Early attempts were made to establish the church on a firm footing

but with limited success. The New Zealand Company tried to plan the
settlement of the country. Settlements began in the North Island but
these were hasty and disorganised and consequently not very
successful. Otago (1848) and Canterbury (1850) were later
settlements and there was better opportunity for planning. With the
North Island experience behind him Edward Gibbon Wakefield
favoured the idea of church-based settlements and set aside revenue
for education under the control of the churches. Christchurch was
founded to be an Anglican city but the church was too closely identified
with the upper classes to appeal to the mainly working class immigrant.
The large working class area of Sydenham in Christchurch had no
Anglican church at all. Bishops Selwyn and Harper were keen to see
churches built and were conscientious in visiting their dioceses, often
on foot, but the majority of immigrants who settled in the country had
only a loose connection with the church. Michael Blain writes; “By the
time our secular society organised its political and religious life in the
1870’s, we were already distinctly more secular than the Old
Country.”180
THE PRESENCE OF NOMINALISM
A further contribution to the process of secularisation was the

nominalism of those who attended church. Wakefield wrote scathingly
about the lack of religious conviction in the colonies, referring to
English Canada, Michigan, South Australia and New Zealand. He had
written a letter arguing for church based settlements, as Canterbury
and Otago were supposed to be. In this letter he commented that
“religion does not flourish there. There is in all of them more or less, a
good deal of observance of religious forms, and the excitement of
religious exercises. But in none of them does religion exercise the sort
of influence which religion exercises here upon the morals, the
intelligence, and the manners of those classes which we consider the
best-informed and the best-behaved; that is, the most respectable

classes in this country.” In another letter he complained about the
severe lack of “religious provisions for the colonies” complaining that
what had been attempted in this area was “nearly all make-believe or
moonshine”. He spoke more favourably of the Church of Scotland
and in glowing terms of the organisation, zeal and compassion of the
Wesleyan Methodists. The lack of clergyman and buildings for the
Anglican church meant that some Anglican immigrants joined other
denominations, “or, what is more common perhaps, soon really
[belonged] to none.”181
Eldred-Grigg, writing about the South Island gentry, who were
generally the run-holders, makes the following observation;
Church going was a social not a moral activity. People did not go to church to
be moved, or to shout amens; they went to see their neighbours and to have a
good gossip. Farmers bargained for cows in the churchyard, and women made
bets on the Easter races... They put on their best clothes... Village women
scrutinised the dress of landowners’ ladies. The gentry enjoyed their role. At
Kaikoura E.G.T. Gooch always ensured that he was a ‘model of dignity’ when
he ‘drove with stately grace to church,’ dressed in a frock coat and silk top hat.
The Ward family in Marlborough made a weekly procession on horseback from
their Brookby estate to mass in Blenheim. Dressed in great state, they were
dubbed by Bishop Redwood ‘the Brookby Cavalry.’182
Seventy five percent of the South Island gentry were Anglican and to
attend church was the ‘done thing’. They funded churches and
opened their homes for picnics and church fairs, yet we might question
the depth of their Christian commitment. Religion in the South Island
was “formal, rather dry”, claims Eldred-Grigg. “The formality of South
Island religion prevented the discongruity between gentry and others
from having any violent consequences. Few people were fanatics, so
there was no real tension.”183 Yet, these were the people on the vestry
and serving as elders in many of the local churches. “The gentry, in
short, had their hands on the chalices’s of every church they
attended.”184 Christianity was formally practised, but among the
118 Feed My Sheep
church-going social leadership it was not, it seems, life-transforming.

Lady Barker’s account of Station Life in New Zealand (1865-67)
supports this impression. She gives us a description of an English
upper middle class Anglican couple who were careful to keep up the
formal routines of Anglicanism, including morning prayers and
Sunday services. The Barkers felt a sense of duty to the “cockatoos”
(cockies – farmers) of their district, who were their social inferiors, and
were diligent about inviting them to their services. They were also keen
to see the babies of the surrounding district christened by the Bishop.
The farmers of the area were willing to attend services yet many of
them also chose to live in isolated places far away from the fellowship
of other believers and the worship services of the church. Again one
gets the impression that for many religion was part of the social fabric
but did not arise our of a genuine heart conviction. The statistics bear
this out. By 1921 92% of the population claimed allegiance to one of
the four main denominations of Anglican, Presbyterian, Roman
Catholic and Methodist. Those claiming to be Anglican made up the
largest group, but only 23.3% of them could be classed as ‘actual’
participants.185 For many Anglicans a formal identification with the
church did not translate into active participation or, it seems, into a
living faith.
THE EFFECT OF LIBERALISM IN ANGLICANISM
Liberalism has also contributed to the secular character of our nation.

The early Anglican missionaries, including Henry and William
Williams, were sent by the Church Missionary Society. This society had
been established in 1799. Although its members were Anglican it
remained a voluntary society with no official standing in the Church of
England.186 Those belonging to the Society were from the Low Church
wing of Anglicanism and were evangelical in outlook. They
emphasised the necessity of individual conversion and were very
interested in missions. Other Anglican clergy who followed were of a
different stripe.
On 30 May 1842, at the age of 32, George Selwyn arrived as the
newly appointed Bishop of New Zealand. His friend, Henry John
Chitty Harper, arrived in Christchurch as the bishop for the South
Island in 1856. Both of these men were influenced by the Oxford
Movement in England and represented the High Church wing of
Anglicanism. The Oxford Movement in England had been promoted
by Keble, Pusey and Newman by means of the Tracts for our Times
and Newman’s printed sermons. It had a wide influence, especially
among the clergy, and promoted a new emphasis on ritual, music and
vestments in the liturgy. The movement also promoted a high view of
the sacraments with a strong emphasis on the mediatorial role of the
clergy. Selwyn had held these views strongly since his mid twenties.
One of his primary goals in coming to New Zealand was to set up
a comprehensive and centralised system of education. He aimed to
follow a medieval ecclesiastical structure for the church and her
education centred in the cathedral. St John’s College, in Auckland,
was launched as a model of his ideals.
In ecclesiastical matters Selwyn antagonised the Wesleyan
missionaries regarding them as “schismatics” and “in a state of
separation from the church, not by Difference of Doctrine, but by a
renunciation of her discipline and orders”185. He also clashed with the
Church Missionary Society with his views on colonisation, education,
the New Zealand Company and, most fundamentally, on theology. In
his opposition to the Church Missionary Society he sought ways to
destroy the good standing the Society had built up with the Maoris. His
efforts were frustrated until late 1846 when Sir George Grey arrived as
the new Governor. “Grey systematically removed evangelical
influence from the executive branch of the government, and actively
opposed the missionary policies of slow colonisation and full
protection of Maori land.”188 Grey and Selwyn also sought to
undermine the standing of the missionaries amongst the tribes,
singling out Henry Williams in particular, attempting to discredit him
by false charges about land holdings.189 In September 1847 Selwyn
120 Feed My Sheep
summoned a national synod at which he publicly declared his

devotion to the Oxford Movement. At this synod he also delivered his
first major episcopal charge to his clergy in which he rejected and
criticised the evangelical position. In keeping with his sympathies for
the Oxford Movement he introduced High Church practices such as
candlesticks, surplices for preachers and intoning prayers. Throughout
his time as bishop his relationship with the Church Missionary Society
was not a happy one. In addition to significant theological differences
with the Society he had an authoritarian temperament and a
touchiness which made him difficult to get on with. Yet Bishop
Selwyn’s High Church sympathies had a considerable influence on the
development of the Anglican Church.
By the end of the century the High Church movement had become
identified with liberalism. Bishop Julius of Christchurch is one example
of this. At the synod of 1898 he was “the most outspoken and forward-
looking man on the Bench of Bishops”. Referring to the Oxford
Movement he said; “We in the colonies have felt too little of the forces
of this new life.” Despite the considerable influence the High Church
movement had exercised on the Anglican church he obviously wanted
to see more. He also pleaded for a teaching clergy who were well able
to preach to the critical and intelligent layman who came to church.
Can we safely or honestly ignore the results of modern criticism? To go on

preaching as if they had no existence is to drive intelligence out of our
Churches. We may refuse to accept them if we please, but we are not justified
in forcing our conclusions upon our people, dogmatising where the Church has
not spoken or laying upon their faith unnecessary burdens greater than they
can bear.190
What is significant here is the obvious sympathy of Julius towards “the

results of modern criticism”. The same leanings can be seen a few years
later in Rev T. H. Sprott, elected as the Bishop of Wellington in 1911.
He was “well-known throughout New Zealand as the leading
exponent of modern thought in its religious aspects.”191 An eloquent,
scholarly Irishman, Sprott wrote a book entitled Modern Study of the

Old Testament and Inspiration. He also adopted a positive attitude
towards the modernist theological position.
Liberal theology has had a strong influence in the Anglican Church
through to the present time. This was illustrated for me in an evensong
service I attended in an Anglican Church in Christchurch. The service
was well led in a reverent and clear manner. We sang fine hymns
drawn from the rich history of the Christian church and these were
beautifully accompanied. Meaningful prayers were read from the
Book of Common Prayer. The sermon, however, was empty of
Biblical content. Little was said about the text chosen; rather, the
biblical passage provided the preacher with a platform to launch into
a talk extolling the benefits of spiritual retreats, counselling and
modern psychology. Rather than pointing people to the Lord the
preacher directed the congregation to modern psychologists.
Today the Anglican Church is deeply divided. An evangelical and
reformed strand has continued in the church, evident in the last few
decades in Christchurch with Canon Orange and those he influenced,
known in Anglican circles as “orange pips”. Some congregations hold
to the Reformational position put forward in the Thirty Nine Articles,
including St John’s, Latimer Square, in Christchurch, and others in the
Nelson diocese. The rest of the church is divided between those who
are liberal and those who are evangelical and charismatic.
THE EFFECT OF LIBERALISM IN PRESBYTERIANISM
Although they formed the largest church grouping (41.83% in 1871),

Anglicans were not the only denomination in the country. Other major
denominations were the Presbyterians (24.81% in 1871)), Roman
Catholics 13.89% in 1871), and Methodists (8.58% in 1871). The
composition of each of these reflected their place of origin, with the
Presbyterians coming from Scotland and the Catholics coming from
Ireland. In addition to the Methodists two other non-conformist groups
122 Feed My Sheep
came out of England – the Baptists and Congregationalists.192

Immigration to New Zealand came in three main waves: In the 1840s
and 1850s from Great Britain; in the 1870s from Great Britain and
Scandinavia as a result of the Vogel immigration scheme; and in the
1950s from Great Britain and the Netherlands. New Zealand churches
show some variation in their regional strength. The Lutherans from
Scandinavia are strong in Central Hawkes Bay, the Roman Catholics
are well-represented on the West Coast of the South Island, and the
Scottish Presbyterians in Southland and Otago.
Dunedin was founded by Scottish immigrants coming from the
Free Church of Scotland. These Presbyterians came soon after the
Disruption in Scotland and came with a vision to establish a city of God
based on the theology of John Calvin and John Knox. Their
commitment to the Scriptures and to a Calvinistic world-view
produced a much stronger church life in Southland and Otago than
was seen in the Church of England in Canterbury. One distinctive of
the Scottish church settlement was their recognition of the importance
of education. They attempted to organise a comprehensive school
system and established Otago University, the earliest effort in New
Zealand at higher education. Even so, the initial settlement was small
and struggling. After 1862 it was swamped by gold diggers “with very
un-presbyterian backgrounds”,193 and this weakened the goal of a
thoroughly Presbyterian settlement.
Presbyterianism was also weakened by the influence of liberalism.
When the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand was formed in 1862 it
took as its “Basis of Union” the Word of God as “the only infallible rule
of faith and practice, and the only certain standard by which all matters
of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the Church of
Christ are to be tried and decided.” As subordinate standards the
Church adopted the Westminster Confession of faith and the Larger
and Shorter Catechisms, as well as “the Directory for Public Worship,
the Form of Presbyterian Church Government, and the First and
Second Books of Discipline, in so far as these latter are applicable to
the circumstances of the Church.”194 Sadly, however, the Word of
God and these subordinate standards were not adhered to as carefully

as this “Basis of Union” might lead us to expect. Even the well-
established theological roots of Presbyterianism did not prevent a
decline away from evangelical and reformational Christianity. A
shortage of ministers had forced the churches to recruit ministers and
theological teachers from abroad who were often influenced by the
liberalism in Scotland and Germany.
By the 1880s many of the Presbyterian ministers had a loose view
of the Westminster Confession. Their doctrinal commitment was
further weakened by the Declaratory Act that did not bind ministers to
matters they considered not essential to the system of doctrine of the
Confession. This Act was adopted by the Synod of Otago and
Southland in 1895, by the Northern church in February 1897, and by
the Union church in 1901. The General Assembly believed that this Act
would remove the difficulties and scruples felt by a number in signing
the Confession of Faith. In the conclusion the Act stated;
That while diversity of opinion is recognised in this Church on such points in the
Confession of Faith as do not enter into the substance of the Reformed faith
therein set forth, the Church retains full authority to determine, in any case that
may arise, what points fall within this description, and thus to guard against any
abuse of this liberty to the detriment of sound doctrine, or to the injury of her
unity and peace.195
This Act was adopted “as exhibiting the sense in which the office-
bearers of this Church may interpret the Confession of Faith.” Writing
later, Rev R. S. Miller, of the Westminster Fellowship in the
Presbyterian church, said of the Act; “Its tendency is to impair the
system of doctrine which it has been our happiness in this church to
inherit. It seems calculated to loosen the king-pin of the Confession. It
is to be feared, and regretted, that not a few regard it as a general
escape hatch, far beyond what is warranted by the actual terms of
it.”196 The full significance of permitting such “diversity of opinion”
within the church became apparent in the 1960s in the controversy
124 Feed My Sheep
over the views of Professor Geering, then principal of Knox

Theological College.
Knox Theological Hall, founded in 1876 in Dunedin, contributed to
a weakening of a conservative biblical position in the Presbyterian
church. Throughout the first half of this century the college displayed
an openness to new theological ideas, a time Allan Davidson regards
as a “stimulating period theologically”.197 Dr John Dickie promoted
this interest in theological innovation during his thirty two years of
teaching at the Theological Hall in Dunedin until his sudden death in
1942. He was influenced by Higher Critical theologians such as Ritschl
and Julicher, with whom he had studied in Germany, and he
introduced his students to Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard. His book,
The Organism of Christian Truth, was published in 1930 and
promoted a modernistic theology. He wrote; “The permanent and
unchanging in Christianity is neither an inerrant book, nor an infallible
institution, nor a closed conceptual system, but a self-communication
of God to us in the Person of His Incarnate Son.”198 Some in the
Presbyterian Church questioned the orthodoxy of Dickie’s theology,
including a long-standing theological opponent, P. B. Fraser.199 The
Synod of Otago and Southland, however, rejected Fraser’s charges as
being without substance. In 1932 Thomas Miller, minister at St
Stephen’s Dunedin (1928-44), attacked Dickie’s book for grounding
the authority for the Christian and the church in subjective experience
rather than the Bible. By a large majority the Assembly affirmed its
“confidence in its honoured Principal and Professor of Systematic
Theology” and congratulated him on the success of his book.200 John
Dickie was an influential figure in the New Zealand church and this
contributed to the spread of his ideas. However, evangelical ministers
continued in the church, among them Thomas Miller who was
appreciated by conservative Presbyterians for his warm evangelical
preaching. Individuals like Miller were notable because they were so
few. By and large ministers of the church of this time were influenced
by liberalism, neo-orthodoxy and the Oxford Group. Some had been
taught by John Baillie at New College Edinburgh and H. H. Farmer at
Westminster College, Cambridge. This Liberal mindset directed the

theology of the church for the next few decades.
These simmering debates came to the boil in the controversy over
Professor Lloyd Geering in the late 1960s. Geering, then the Principal
of Knox Theological College, wrote an article in the Easter issue of the
Outlook in which he denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.201 There
was a strong reaction from within the church and a vigorous debate in
the wider community. The Assembly of 1966 defused the issue by
affirming the central doctrines of the Scriptures. These statements,
however, only papered over the deep divisions in the church. Early the
next year (March 1967) the debate flared up again after Geering
preached a sermon in Wellington in which he stated that “man has no
immortal soul”.202 This time Robert Wardlaw, leader of the Layman’s
Association, a group formed to defend the conservative protestant
faith of the Presbyterian Church, laid charges of doctrinal error against
Geering. Amidst massive publicity the assembly met to consider these
accusations at St Paul’s, in Christchurch. At the end of the debate
Geering was cleared of the charges. “Skilled Assembly leaders worked
behind the scenes to bring opposing strands together. They feared that
those who opposed Geering’s thinking would take the opportunity to
form a separate church. In the event this did not happen; perhaps the
leaders overestimated the influence of the Layman’s Association and
ministers associated with it.”203 The outcome of this debate is
testimony to the inroads liberalism had made into the Presbyterian
Church and the weakness of the biblical and evangelical wing of the
denomination.
In the debates it is also interesting to note the attention given to the
Declaratory Act of 1901. In answering the charges, Geering agreed
with one of his opponents, Mr. Blakie, that the force of the Declaratory
Act, in practice, was to grant complete freedom of opinion. He
admitted that he could not have entered the Presbyterian Church had
it not been for the Declaratory Act. He went on to say; “This trial may
well make clear among other things that the day for naming the
Westminster Confession as a subordinate standard in any real sense is
126 Feed My Sheep
now over.... I have long felt that the church has been in something of
a dishonest position in continuing to pay lip service to these
documents, when in fact we no longer use them as an effective
standard.”204 Geering’s statements confirm the significant influence of
the Declaratory Act in undermining the doctrinal position of the
Presbyterian Church of New Zealand.
Further attention to the views of Geering led to another vigorous
debate at the Assembly in 1970. At the end of the debate the Assembly
disassociated itself from Geering’s public position, although 54
members dissented from this decision. Within the church there was a
perception that the tension caused by these theological debates was
seriously weakening the church and her evangelism. Although this
ended the controversy it did not diminish the influence of Geering’s
ideas. “Theological pluralism continued to grow underground almost
as a subversive element with first the liberal and then the conservative
strands attempting to seize control of leadership positions and steer the
church.”205 These deep divisions are present in the church today,
brought to the surface in recent times by the debates over homosexual
ordination. Some congregations holding to the conservative
protestant position of the Westminster Confession, such as Owaka and
St Andrews, Manurewa, are seeking to break away from the
denomination. The rest of the denomination is split between liberals
and charismatic evangelicals.
As we have seen, the church in New Zealand did not begin strongly.
A desire to avoid the denominational controversies that had plagued
England has weakened the doctrinal position and proclamation of the
church. Church attendance, even in the early days of our history, has
never been high because most of the immigrants came from the
unchurched working classes in England (although there are significant
provincial variations, especially in the early period of our history).
Church-goers included a proportion who attended because this was
the thing to do rather than out of personal conviction and genuine
faith. Finally, the influence of liberal theology and a weak view of the
authority of the Scriptures have made a significant contribution to the
decline of the mainline denominations. Since around 1900 the three

main Protestant denominations have steadily lost members,
leadership, a clear sense of purpose and the respect of New Zealand
society. Liberalism, in my view, has prevented the church from
providing clear teaching and direction from God’s Word. This has
contributed to the general decline of Christian influence in this country,
a decline that has been especially rapid since the 1960s. All this is not
to deny that most New Zealanders once claimed adherence to a
church, nor the sincerity and genuine faith of many who did attend
services, nor that life was conducted within a Christian moral
framework and understanding. Rather it is offered as an explanation
for the lack of influence of the church and the secular character of our
society.
A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY?
We have been in the habit of describing NZ as a “Christian” country,

even as “God’s-own” (“Godzone” – Richard Seddon). This phrase has
been used because New Zealand is a beautiful country. Yet it is also
true in the sense that our history, traditions, culture and institutions
have been shaped by the Bible and a heritage of Western Christianity.
We have inherited Christian morals and values and our society was
based on and built around Christian principles. This Christian
influence and heritage can be seen in the words of our national
anthem.
God of Nations at Thy feet

In the bonds of love we meet,
Hear our voices we entreat,
God defend our free land;
Guard Pacific’s triple star
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make our praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand.
128 Feed My Sheep
Men of every creed and race

Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
From dissension, envy hate,
And corruption guard our state,
Make our country good and great,
May our mountains ever be

Freedom’s ramparts on the sea,
Make us faithful unto Thee
Guide her in her nation’s van
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out Thy glorious plan,
Let our love for Thee increase,

May Thy blessings never cease,
Give us plenty, give us peace,
From dishonour and from shame,
Guard our country’s spotless name,
Crown her with immortal fame,
This hymn was written by Thomas Bracken and was officially adopted
by New Zealand in its centennial year (1940).206 It is a prayer
addressed to the “God of Nations” requesting that “God defend New
Zealand.” Evidence of our Christian heritage can be seen in a number
of other areas. Sessions of Parliament are opened with prayer in which
we “humbly acknowledge the need for God’s guidance in all things.”
When people become citizens of New Zealand they swear an oath
which ends with the phrase, “so help me God.” Many New Zealanders
gather for prayer services on ANZAC Day to commemorate our
soldiers who died fighting in wars that involved our forces. A general
Christian influence may be seen on Waitangi Day, in movements such

as Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, YMCA, YWCA, and in the annual
meetings of a wide range of groups, although we might well question
the nature and extent of the Christianity that surfaces in these groups
and places.207
On the outside New Zealand has given the appearance of being
Christian. Brian Carrell, Bishop of the Wellington diocese of the
Anglican Church, gives a good description of the state of the church
and Christian faith in Christchurch during the 1940s and 50s in a
passage worth quoting at length.
Let me tell you about the world in which I grew up during the 1940’s, the period
of the Second World War, in a southern suburb of Christchurch, alongside the
Heathcote River. It was a world in which God was ‘in the air’. Not in a spooky
sense, but everyone took it for granted that God was real and important. Nearly
everyone in my primary school class went to Sunday School or to church
somewhere. When it was appropriate the teachers without exception were able
to talk naturally about God. We were taught to stand to attention and remove
our caps when a funeral passed by. Some Protestant churches seemed always
to have closed doors, but all Church of England and Catholic churches were
always unlocked, day and night. The church I went to didn’t even have a key!
Churches were not all full, and by no means did everyone go to church. But
there were lots of them, all with their ministers. And when Sunday came the
whole neighbourhood quietened down and everyone knew that was the day
people went to Church. Sunday was patently a day for God. The Press and the
Christchurch Star-Sun reported on the Anglican Synod, and the Methodist
Conference, and the Presbyterian Assembly with care in those days. The press
desk at Synod always had a roster or reporters on duty for any snippets of news.
Rarely was a funeral not taken by a minister. The vast majority of children were
baptised somewhere, and most weddings would take place in a church. There
was no real embarrassment about believing in God – the objects of curiosity in
that world were the occasional people who openly admitted being atheists or
sceptics.
In brief, there existed what sociologist Peter Berger describes as a
‘plausibility structure’ for Christian faith. This was a legacy of Christendom, a
legacy which, though we did not realise it then, was soon to run dry. But in
those decades of the faith-filled ‘forties and ‘fifties we were still enjoying the
130 Feed My Sheep
afterglow of Christendom: Christian values were assumed as the cement of

society, the Church was esteemed as the soul of the community, and God was
there.208
Francis Schaeffer has described this situation as a “Christian memory”,

referring to the remembrance of Christian morals without a solid basis
in actual belief. We have inherited a Christian culture and moral
framework which has been of immense benefit to us as a nation and
still lingers on. However, despite all this outward conformity to
Christian values and culture we were not as Christian as we assumed
we were. The 1881 census showed that approximately only 20% of the
population attended church. Rather than people drifting away from
the church we have to admit that many were never really part of it.209
Writing in 1962 W. H. Oliver said; “The Christianity which
characterises the bulk of the New Zealand people is a vestigial sort
which is manifested fitfully, in moral attitudes rather than in explicit
beliefs or overt behaviour. It is enshrined, not in any building, but in
such phrases as ‘giving a man a fair go’, ‘doing the decent thing’,
‘playing the game’,210 and ‘lending a hand’ – colloquial debasements
of the Golden Rule.”211 The appearance of Christianity was often just
that – an appearance, a veneer, an external and formal religiosity. We
were enjoying the legacy of Christendom – what Peter Berger calls “a
plausibility structure” for the Christian faith, and what Brian Carrell
describes as “the afterglow of Christendom”. Billy Graham’s
evangelistic crusade in 1959 marked the end of this era.
In the 1960s we saw a revolt against the traditions and values of the
Christian faith and a rapid crumbling of the moral and religious
framework of our nation. Brian Carrell gives us a visual illustration of this.
A couple of years ago we moved into a new home in Palmerston North. It has
a magnificent view from my upstairs study window. But it is a changed view.
Only five years ago I could have seen from this window All Saints’ church
tower, the Catholic Cathedral spire, St. Paul’s Methodist church, and St.
Andrew’s Presbyterian church. But now there is only a hint of St. Andrew’s; a
glimpse of the Cathedral. Why? Because of the changed landscape. The
churches in Palmerston North instead of being dominant features of the

skyline, have been crowded out to become insignificant buildings on the
sideline. This is a visual representation of what has happened to the place of the
Church in society. ‘Christendom’ has become post-Christendom. A friendly
environment for the faith has become an alien atmosphere for the Gospel.”212
The same illustration could be taken from Christchurch where the

Cathedral, having once dominated the profile of the central city, is now
hemmed in and overshadowed by the commercial buildings around it,
again symbolic of what has happened to the Christian faith.
Christendom has largely collapsed in the Western World and in New
Zealand. No longer is the Christian faith the dominant or prevailing
influence in our culture. We now live in a post-Christian, pagan
society. We may have described ourselves as a Christian country in the
past, but we can do so no longer. Our nation has been nominally
Christian since its founding and is now post-Christian.213 By far the
majority of New Zealanders do not affirm the Christian faith – instead
they have a vague humanism that has been distilled from Christian
principles.
Our situation is not unique but is one we share with the rest of the
Western world. We live in a global village. Western culture has become
a global culture. New Zealand is part of world-wide situation that many
are describing as “post-modern”. Our culture is shaped by the rest of
the world, perhaps even more so than other countries. Our small size
and the ease of modern communication has contributed to an
openness to (and even an excessive dependence on) overseas
influences. In the past we have looked to England; now we tend to look
more to the United States.214 Partly because of this we have been slow
to develop our own religious ethos. Most of the Protestant
denominations have been dependant on overseas countries for their
theology, leadership, preaching style, order of worship and
hymnbooks.215
Having said this, we do have our own version of western culture –
our situation is unique, as is every country’s. This brings us to consider
132 Feed My Sheep
some of the primary characteristics of our society in New Zealand

today. Although we share these with the rest of western culture they
come to expression in particular ways in our own country.
Understanding these features will help us communicate Christian faith,
hope and love to the people of our culture.
133
Chapter 3
THE SECULARISM OF
CONTEMPORARY
NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY
SECULARISM
For most of her European history New Zealand has generally been
regarded as a Christian country. Now some are debating whether New
Zealand or Australia is the most secular country in the world.216 Maybe
there are other close contenders, but even that this point is debated
says something about the state of our country. Secularism describes
our post-Christian culture as one that denies or ignores the existence of
God. It describes the viewpoint that prevails in a society that was
Christian in its outlook but has lost sight of that transcendent
dimension. Secularism is “the outlook and values that arise in a society
that is no longer taking its bearings from a transcendent world
order.”217 In the secular society we are self-reliant. God is superfluous.
What is important is the pursuit of happiness here and now.218 For
secularists the world can be explained by purely natural phenomena.
Rather than seeing the world as an open system (ie. open to God and
the supernatural), they see the world as a closed system (ie. there are
no supernatural influences). Secular people either do not believe in
God, miracles, revelation or any supernatural intervention; or if they
do, their belief does not make any practical difference to their lives. For
all intents and purposes God does not exist. They may not be atheists
philosophically, but they are practically. For the secularist God is either
absent or irrelevant. Charles Darwin accurately describes this
viewpoint; “I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine
revelation...This disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at
last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have
never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was
134 Feed My Sheep
correct.”219 This is secularism – where a person finds himself living

without God and life continues on as usual – God and the church have
become unnecessary. We need to distinguish this from secularisation.
SECULARISATION
Secularisation is “the process that creates the public environment in

which these values seem natural and inevitable.”220 It is the process
that leads to a society in which secularism prevails. At least three
significant factors are at work in secularisation. First, improvements in
medical science have given doctors more control over disease and
death. In times past people felt themselves totally in the hands of God
– now they place themselves confidently into the hands of the surgeon.
Second, the movement from villages to towns and cities has loosened
ties with the church. As people experienced the changes brought about
by a move from the country to the city they often experienced a change
in their religious commitment – the new freedom and opportunity
meant they did not join a church in the new town. Third, the spread of
new ideas and the rise of the mass media gave people more knowledge
and a greater awareness of world events and caused them to be more
questioning and critical in their attitudes. (National newspapers began
to circulate in the 1860s, radio began to broadcast in the 1930s, and
television began transmission in the 1950s). This critical approach also
extended to the church, the Bible and the sermons of the preacher.
None of these factors by themselves, or even combined together,
necessarily excludes a living faith in God. They were combined,
however, with a higher critical approach to the Bible that undermined
confidence in the infallibility of the Scriptures and their historical
reliability. They were also associated with great changes in the world of
ideas, especially the world and life view of the Enlightenment. All these
combined to marginalise God, “to make what is absolute and
transcendent irrelevant to the stuff of everyday life.”221
The Secularism of NZ Society 135
PRIVATISATION
Secularism is closely connected with the privatisation of religion. This

is the view that religion is irrelevant, even harmful, to the public sphere,
and should be restricted to one’s personal life. It arises out of the
dualism of Greek philosophy. Dualism profoundly influenced the
development of medieval scholasticism, especially the greatest of the
scholastic theologians, Thomas Aquinas. He separated the realms of
nature and grace, paving the way for a separation of reason and faith,
fact and value, science and religion, the material and the spiritual.
Privatisation has excluded religion from the public world of politics,
economics, business and science and focussed it on the personal life of
the individual and the family. The Christian faith is regarded as having
nothing to say to the public sphere of life. Faith and the church are not
seen as integrating principles of life but as one compartment of life – a
private one. Os Guinness notes; “where religion still survives in the
modern world, no matter how passionate or committed the individual
believer may be, it amounts to little more than a private preference, a
spare-time hobby, a leisure pursuit.”222 The grand, global umbrella of
faith, he observes, has shrunk to the size of a plastic rain hat.223 The
processes of secularisation and privatisation have dramatically
reduced the effectiveness of the Christian faith to shape and influence
the culture. This is true even in the USA where religious belief is still
high but where this belief may have no practical or tangible effect on
the way people live or view the world.224 The Christian faith in America
is, “socially irrelevant, even if privately engaging.”225
Privatisation has been a strong factor in the church and Christian
faith from the beginning of European immigration. As we have noted,
a fear of denominational conflict made the state wary of allowing
distinctive denominational viewpoints in the public schools
(Education Act 1877). This has had the effect, not only of keeping
denominations out of the state schools, but of keeping out the Christian
faith except, of course, for ‘private’ activities, such as Inter-Schools
Christian Fellowship (ISCF). Even when Bible in Schools is taught the
136 Feed My Sheep
school officially closes for that half-hour. Although the Education Act
intended the word “secular” to mean non-denominational it has come
to mean non-Christian. Privatisation in New Zealand’s religious history
has also kept the church and Christians from having a significant
influence on politics and the government. Analysing The Social
Context of New Zealand Religion, Michael Hill admits that it is difficult
to identify the influence of the religious factor in “its public, institutional
form”, both now and for much of New Zealand’s history. Its influence
is more easily found in the privatised area of individual commitment.226
SECULARISM IN NEW ZEALAND
If we look back over our history we have to concede that, on the basis
of our opening definition, New Zealand has been a secular society for
most of her history. Even though people generally believed in God and
the Bible, their belief did not make much impact on their lives.
Throughout the nineteenth century the majority of New Zealanders
lived as practical atheists. Church attendance may be taken as some
indicator of how seriously people take their Christian commitment – as
we have seen, figures for regular church attendance have always been
low, never rising above 30%. In recent decades this has declined even
further. In a survey taken in November 1989 16% of the population
claimed to attend church weekly. Most strongly represented was the
older age group, especially those over sixty,227 with those between 18-
29 as the least frequent attenders. 51% of the population never attend
or attend less than once a year. Vision New Zealand research
conducted in 1993 indicated that 11% of New Zealanders attended
churches. (This figure came from denominational headquarter
statistics for annual average attendances). Out of this 4% of New
Zealanders were Roman Catholic and another 4% were attending
mainline Protestant churches.228
Also declining is the percentage of the population identifying
themselves with a Christian church. In the 1986 census 67.78%
claimed an affiliation with a church; in 1996, only ten years later, this
had dropped significantly to 51.97%. As we would expect, more
people are claiming to have no religion. In the 1981 census 5.3%
claimed to have no religion, in 1986 this rose to 16.4%, in 1991 to
19.88%, and in 1996 to 24.71%. It may be that those who used to write
“Church of England” or “Presbyterian” on their census form are
becoming more honest and open about their lack of religious
commitment and now state what they have always been.229 These
figures confirm the secular character of our society. If we add to the
1996 figure of those who claimed to have “no religion” (24.71%),
those who objected to stating their religious affiliation (7.09%), and
those who identified with other religions and cults (5.54%), and those
who did not specify any religious connection (5.19%), 42.53% of the
population are non-Christian by their own definition. Another telling
statistic illustrating this increasing secularisation are the figures for
attendance at Sunday School. In 1960 50% of New Zealand children
attended Protestant Sunday Schools. By 1992 the figure was down to
12%. Such a poor attendance at church and Sunday school has led to
widespread Biblical illiteracy where people are appallingly ignorant of
the Scriptures.
Prof. Michael Hill gives an overall impression of New Zealanders
when he says that “about one fifth of the population can be described
as a committed core of religionists, another fifth are avowedly non-
religious, and three fifths show gradations of belief and practice.”230 Dr
Jane Simpson, lecturer in Religious Studies at the University of
Canterbury, observes that in New Zealand there is a silence about
religion, “a deep vein of reticence about religion”, which is almost a
national trait. She describes the approach to religion in the general
histories of New Zealand as “dismissive”. Part of her evidence for this
is the failure of historians to acknowledge the religious dimension in
the suffrage movement. Feminist historians in particular have ignored
the religious motivations of the women who pushed for the
franchise.231
Secularism, of course, is not primarily an academic matter – it is
138 Feed My Sheep
about how people live, think, and work. We see it operating in the
lifestyle, goals and priorities of New Zealanders. They are busy in their
gardens, building their own homes, protecting their weekends,
throwing themselves into sport, walking and tramping the countryside
and mountains. Modern New Zealand society offers much competition
to the church and Christian faith and, at present, the attractions of
society are winning. An article in the Dominion Sunday Times noted
that; “Come Sunday morning 89 per cent of us stay put. On the big
days – Christmas and Easter – and it’s not raining – 15% of us will
venture out but most of us are a godless lot. The tattered remnants of
‘faith’ may lurk somewhere deep in the psyche but God’s ministers
here on earth just don’t seem to have the pulling power any more.”232
Brian Carrell summarises the present situation; “Secularism has
advanced so rapidly over the last three decades since the 1960s, that
it is a different landscape. We now live in a nation in which fewer and
fewer people know less and less about God and care less and less
about the gospel.”233 By contrast, the process of secularisation in
England was delayed by decades because of two factors – “The
Church of England had an established place and role in society by law
and tradition, and overwhelming reminders of a Christian past were to
be seen on every hand in the nation’s life.”234 New Zealand has not
enjoyed the benefit of these restraining factors.
AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN SOCIETY?
Increasing secularism has gone hand in hand with a growing cynicism

towards and sentiment against the Christian faith. This is reflected in
the negative stance of the New Zealand media towards orthodox
Christianity. “We also suffer in New Zealand from a media besotted
with the theologically iconoclastic and bizarre. If someone is attacking
Christian orthodoxy in some way, no matter how facile,
inconsequential or fantastic his or her claims, time on radio and
television and space in the press can be guaranteed, especially if the
person is a professor or a bishop. With due respect to Professor

Geering and his considerable expertise, his over-exposure as a media
religious expert has been at the expense of the intellectual integrity of
Christian orthodoxy.”235 Christian leaders have a perception that
“journalists in the secular media are biased against religion and that
their coverage often negatively stereotypes religious people. They
think that what does get reported tends to be sensationalised....
Journalists counter these claims by claiming that religious officials have
unrealistic expectations of the media. They say religious events are
assessed for inclusion in general news pages and bulletins according to
the same factors as any other potential news.”236 There is, however,
some basis for the perception Christians have of the media coverage of
the church. An analysis by a journalism student of the contents of four
metropolitan newspapers showed that “newspaper coverage of
religion in NZ more than halved between 1954 and 1994 while at the
same time religious affiliation dropped by only a fifth.” His survey of
one NZ metropolitan daily newspaper showed that “only one percent
of its stories had church groups or known Christians as their
subject.”237 Religious programming on radio is equally deficient. In
1997 religious programming was reduced to one Sunday slot of 100
minutes (compared to the BBC allocation of almost 300 minutes per
week). Thirty minutes of this time is Christian hymns, five minutes is
religious news from around the world, and up to twenty minutes is
made up of questions put to a “resident expert” who could be an
adherent of any religion.238 In 1998 the spiritual content of radio
programmes had dropped to 1.28% (compared with 2.6% in 1976),
while for television is was 0.3% in 1998 (compared with 0.8% in
1976).239 The Waikanae Declaration of 1997 stated the concern of the
Vision New Zealand Congress about “the general lack of balance in
our media, and the unbalanced presentation of Christians and
Christianity.”240 Brian Carrell, Anglican Bishop of Wellington,
confirms this; “News of the Churches’ activities, exposure to a
specifically Christian voice and viewpoint, and public access to
prominent church leaders were kept to a minimum. Television
140 Feed My Sheep
programmes such as All Gas and Gaiters made clergy look morons and
the Church look foolish.”241 He notes a recent change in this attitude
but attributes this to the influence of postmodernity rather than an
improved attitude to the church.
There are a number of incidents that illustrate this general
insensitivity towards Christians. The Hero Festival, with its blatant and
crude celebration of the homosexual and lesbian lifestyle, receives
much publicity with posters bearing the City Promotions logo. Yet, in
striking contrast, the Auckland City Council was criticised for
sponsoring a life-sized nativity scene in Aotea Square and Auckland
City Promotions officers are reluctant to put up street banners
advertising Christian events.
On Sunday 17 November 1991 the South Island town of Waimate
hosted the great Waimate car race – from 8.15 am. until 5.00 pm. The
noise made it impossible for the churches to hold their services. After
some negotiation all the churches could achieve was a postponement
of the start of the race for forty minutes. This would allow them to
squeeze in an early worship service. Worst affected was the Salvation
Army hall because of its close proximity to the race pits. In a noble
gesture the race committee paid for the hire of an alternative hall
further away.242 That the race should be held on a Sunday with almost
total indifference for the church services of the town testifies to a low
regard for the church.
Another incident took place early in 1998 when Te Papa,
Wellington’s newly built national museum, featured a show of
contemporary British art. Included in the show was a model of the
Virgin Mary covered in a condom, and a version of Leonardo da
Vinci’s Last Supper depicting a bare breasted woman in the place of
Christ. These two exhibits raised a storm of protest, especially from
Roman Catholics, but the director of the museum refused to remove
them. In an Opinion article Press writer Rosemary McLeod observed
that “Mocking Christians is one of our national sports.” She contrasted
this with the respect shown for Maoris or lesbians – “Just try sheathing
a tiki in a condom and showing it in our national museum.” She asks,
“Why do Christians get up everybody’s nose? Hard to say, really. They

just do.”243 These comments bear out the assessment above that our
secular society not only ignores God and eternal realities but also
actively opposes a Christian position. This opposition needs to be seen
in the context of growing interest in and sympathy for other religions.
A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY?
Although the Christian world-view is declining in influence and the

number of professing Christians in New Zealand is decreasing there is
an increasing interest in spirituality. One of the most obvious signs of
this is the attention given to the New Age movement. This came home
to me recently when I was looking for a Bible in one of the Whitcoulls
stores in Christchurch. I was having difficulty finding the Christian
book section. Eventually I discovered why – it was located on the
bottom shelf of a stand marked, “Inspirational”. There, tucked away in
an obscure corner, I found a few Bibles and Christian books. Close by,
however, an entire stand was devoted to New Age books and
materials. Clearly, there is a market for New Age literature. Further
evidence for a high level of interest in the supernatural is the popularity
of science fiction movies such as the Star Wars series, Close
Encounters of a Third Kind, ET, Independence Day, ID4 and TV
shows like the X-Files.244 The idea that there is ‘something out there’
seems more believable today.
This revived interest in alternative forms of spirituality is also
altering the views New Zealanders have of the Christian faith.
Although many will still talk about ‘God’ they have different ideas
about what this means. For most ‘God’ does not describe the personal
Creator God of Christian revelation but rather a vague and mystical life
force. In one survey 62% of those who claimed no religion believed in
a life force/spirit while only 12% said they believed in a personal God.
More disturbing than this statistic was the response of those who were
regular church attenders: 36% of them said they believed in a personal
142 Feed My Sheep
God while 61% said they believed in a life force/spirit not a person.
Here is a sobering indication of the effect liberalism and the New Age
are having on churchgoers. No doubt this influence will continue as
movies borrow biblical categories but give them a new twist. One
recent example of this comes from New Zealand director Vincent Ward
with What Dreams May Come. The movie combines science fiction
with New Age metaphysics as we are taken for a guided tour of heaven
and hell. After being killed in a car crash the husband goes to heaven.
Four years later his wife commits suicide and goes to hell. Her
husband, aided by a guide, goes to find her and deliver her from her
personal hell.245 That the future world is a subject for a film illustrates
the new interest in spirituality. That the lines between heaven and hell
are blurred shows how far we are from Biblical Christianity.
Paul Little, editor of the Listener, also believes that spirituality is
important. He bemoans the pragmatic “give us enough number 8 wire
and we’ll come up with a cure for cancer and throw in a batch of
pikelets” attitude. His concern is that this present generation of young
New Zealanders will have “precious little time to feed and water their
immortal souls.” In response to this deficiency he would like to see a
study of spiritual values covering “the widest range of religious
thought, including atheism.... Spirituality is an exploration, not a
discovery. A course of instruction shouldn’t attempt to provide
children with answers. But it could help them work out where to start
looking. At this moment, too many don’t even know there are
questions.”246 This openness to spirituality is commendable, but his
comments again demonstrate that we are a long way from the
promotion of biblical Christianity.
Spirituality is also affecting western medicine prompting serious
consideration of the spiritual side of healing. “Twenty years ago, no
self-respecting American doctor would have dared to propose a
double-blind, controlled study of something as intangible as prayer.
Western medicine has spent the last 100 years trying to rid itself of
remnants of mysticism.... As the 20th century draws to an end, there is
growing disenchantment with one of its greatest achievements:
modern high-tech medicine.”247 Western medicine is seeing a shift

towards the East. Deepak Chopra is one advocate of this trend. He has
developed his alternative medicine out of Hinduism, but has
synthesised this mystical approach with the language of technology
and computers. His approach is part of a trend back to old and exotic
solutions to medical problems: “The Tai Chi masters, the Tibetan sages
and the modern shamans who treat illness with auras and crystals.”248
There is nothing new under the sun. New Age religion is a revival of old
paganism. Behind the modern craze “lurks old fashioned divination,
magic and demon possession. With the eclipse of Christianity,
primitive nature religions come creeping back in all their superstition
and barbarism.”249
Now that the God of the Scriptures is perceived to be absent he is
rapidly being replaced with other forms of religious experience. In his
great work analysing world civilisations Sir Arnold Toynbee argued
that “successful societies have some sort of religious consensus. When
this consensus is lost, new objects of worship will rush in to fill the
spiritual vacuum.”250 This is precisely what we are seeing today. “The
world, so recently emptied of the divine, is now awash with
supernatural intrusions, with strange voices and mystical experiences
of every conceivable kind.”251 Having cast off the Christian heritage
many New Zealanders seem ready to believe anything. It is a strange
paradox that the more technological our society becomes the more
people are attracted to astrology and other vague forms of religious
expression. Our society is full of gurus, therapists, healers, promoters
of meditative techniques and strategies for personal development,
what Harold Turner calls “a religious variety show”.252 Just look at the
pages devoted to this in the weekly TV Guide: Psychic readings,
Marilyn’s Guiding Line, Live Tarot Readings, Clairvoyant Helpline,
Horoscope reading, Crystal Vision Tarot, Numerology Readings,
Crystal Ball readings, Visions Personal, Positive and Compassionate.
The New Zealand Advertiser (Issue 129) carried a full page add for a
Tarot game with the assurance that if you posted it, “You will receive,
by return mail, the exact answer to the question that is worrying you so
144 Feed My Sheep
much.” All this growing interest in religious experience confirms the

observation of G K Chesterton, an early twentieth century Roman
Catholic theologian and novelist, that a culture that no longer believes
in God will believe everything.
Not only is everything believed but some also want to see
everything taught. Dr. Jane Simpson, religious studies lecturer at the
University of Canterbury, would like to see a multi-faith study of
religions taught in secondary schools. “We want a pluralistic approach
that does not favour one religion, but celebrates and affirms religious
diversity. That’s so important for social control and cohesion. Religion
is much bigger than values.”253
This trend to spirituality should not surprise us. In Ecclesiastes the
Teacher informs us that God has “set eternity in the hearts of men”
(Ecclesiastes 5:11). We are spiritual beings; we were created to relate
to God; we will search for God or for some replacement of Him. New
Agers are on a quest for meaning, searching for spirituality. Sadly, in
their search for spiritual experience people are by-passing the church
and looking to Eastern mysticism, crystals and ‘the god within’. Some
will have tried the church and found it wanting. Others will not turn to
the church because they think they know all about it anyway and have
rejected it. To some extent we can blame the liberals for this; they
dismissed God and the supernatural as mythical nonsense leaving
only what they could rationally understand. When people looked to
the church and the Christian faith for the transcendent there was
nothing to find – God had been written out of the script.
As Christians we can welcome this growing awareness of a spiritual
world. People around us may be more willing to consider the truth of
the Christian faith because they are not locked into a naturalistic mind-
set. At the same time this presents a great challenge to the Christian
faith. Our secular New Zealand society has walked away from our
Christian heritage but is busy exploring a range of other spiritual
possibilities. Dr. Simpson’s comments, quoted above, show that the
Christian faith is regarded as only one religious alternative among
many. There is a smorgasbord of options to choose from and for most
Kiwis one is as valid as the next. This attitude is a consequence of the

loss of truth in our western world and our situation of pluralism.
146 Feed My Sheep
Chapter 4
LOSS OF TRUTH IN
CONTEMPORARY
NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY
THE POSTMODERN VIEW OF TRUTH
God, in our secular society, has been pushed to the margins of life. This
has had critical consequences for truth: If God is regarded as irrelevant
to life then his truth is also regarded as irrelevant. The Christian
Research Journal explained the significance of this new perspective on
truth by noting that until recently “Christianity was under fire at most
universities because it was thought to be unscientific, and
consequently, untrue. Today, Christianity is widely rejected merely
because it claims to be true! Increasingly, academics regard anyone
claiming to know any objective or universal truth as intolerant and
arrogant.”254 This neatly sums up the current situation – Biblical truth
has been rejected as The Truth – all it can claim is the status of being
a truth, one among many. This is a radically different way of looking at
Christian truth.
In the premodern situation there were different ideas about truth.
Each culture had their own gods and an official ‘story’ – that is, an
account of the origin of the world and the place of their culture in the
larger scheme of things. This story was regarded as true, was believed
by most in the culture, and provided meaning to the society. All
members of that society were expected to believe the truth and to
conform to it, whether they lived in Ancient Greece, in Babylonia or
Israel. Some toleration of other belief systems was permitted because
the ancient world was polytheistic and many cultures were willing
simply to add more gods to those they worshipped. The Greeks and
Romans had an official policy of tolerating the religions of the peoples
they conquered and incorporating these into their own worship. In
Loss of Truth in NZ Society 147
turn, the conquered peoples were expected to pay lip service to the
state religion. Christians in the first century were persecuted because
they challenged the existing belief system by refusing to acknowledge
the legitimacy of the other gods. They insisted that their God was the
only True God and they would not bow down to Caesar.
After 313 AD the Christian faith became the official religion for the
Roman world, giving meaning to life and making sense of human
existence and history. It was accepted by most of society as
authoritative and enforced on the members of society by the church
and the state. As we have seen, this began to change with the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The world view held by the
church and supported by the state was challenged on all sides.
Bloodshed in the religious wars of the seventeenth century prompted
people to look for a basis for agreement in society other than the
religious. Beginning with Descartes philosophers attempted to find a
rational basis for unity in society to which all men could agree. After the
Enlightenment truth was no longer tied to the revelation of God in the
Bible but was based on the clear knowledge rational people could
discover through careful observation of the world. This was the so-
called ‘scientific method’. It was also applied to the Bible in the Higher
Critical approach and in liberal theology. The epistemology (theory of
knowledge) of the Enlightenment era claimed “to reflect and represent
reality so accurately that it simply mirrors the way things are.”255 It
claimed that there was a direct correspondence between objective
reality and the thoughts of the knower. The naive realist of the
Enlightenment claimed that we can have a sure access to truth – what
we need to do is use our reason and powers of observation to
determine the facts, and then convince others of the truth of these. This
scientific certainty would establish “one singular, universal story that
would serve as the foundation of all reality.”256 Reasonable human
beings could come to universally accepted objective truth. People
living with the world view of modernity believed (and believe) they
could gain absolute certain knowledge. Not only was this desirable – it
was also attainable. Intellectual people of this era were supremely
148 Feed My Sheep
optimistic about their quest for truth. All they had to do was apply the
right method. Stanley Grenz illustrates this from the original Star Trek
series, whose hero was Mr. Spock. “Spock was the ideal
Enlightenment man, completely rational and without emotion (or with
his emotions in check). Repeatedly, his dispassionate rationality
provided the calculative key necessary to solve the problems
encountered by the Enterprise. According to the creators of Star Trek,
in the end our problems are rational and, therefore, they require
rational expertise.”257 Some Bible colleges and seminaries also worked
with this assumption holding that a thorough knowledge of Hebrew
and Greek and a rigorous application of exegetical principles would
guarantee the right interpretation.258
During the twentieth century, however, it became apparent that
mankind could not achieve absolute certainty of knowledge on the
basis of human reason alone. Truth is not only known through the
mind, but also through our will, our emotions and through the
community we belong to. This postmodern approach is clearly
illustrated in the second Star Trek series, The Next Generation. Mr.
Spock has been replaced by Data, who is also a “fully rational thinker
capable of superhuman intellectual feats”.259 Data, however, is an
android – a sub-human machine – who desires to become human.
Although he often contributes to finding solutions to problems through
his rational thinking, he is only one of several in the Enterprise crew.
Another key member of the ship is Counsellor Troi, “a woman gifted
with the ability to perceive the hidden feelings of others”.260 Aboard
the Enterprise the truth is discovered by various people making their
contribution with their unique abilities and approach. The truth is
discovered by the community working together. This emphasis on the
community is also typically postmodern. In the contemporary
perspective truth is not discovered by reason, scientific observation or
Christian revelation, but is rather created by a community of people.
Reality is a social construction, something we make up ourselves. Our
understanding of the truth is conditioned by the community we are
part of. Truth is relational. This means that truth is relative to our
specific community. The truth is not timeless, universal or

transcultural; rather, it is time-bound, specific and local.
Philosophers recognised that perfect objectivity is impossible; all
knowledge has a personal element in it. They also recognised that we
all come at knowledge with our own presuppositions; the framework
we are working with will shape the questions we ask as well as our
analysis and research in a certain subject. As a result no one can take
a purely objective and ‘scientific’ approach to their inquiry. All our
knowledge is conditioned by our subjective starting point and the
paradigm we are working with.261 Recognition of these ideas
contributed to the development of a post-modern epistemology
known as deconstructionism.
In this epistemology no one can claim to have the truth, because
everyone makes up their own truth. The truth is as you see it. An
objective view of truth is impossible because each one of us is standing
inside our own representation of truth. Truth is always subjective
because it is always a person’s interpretation or perception of reality,
not the real world itself. The roots of this idea can be traced back to
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who maintained that we cannot know
what the world is like in itself because we see it through the patterns of
our minds. We do not discover the truth that is out there but we impose
meaning on the world by ordering the facts.262 Others, such as
Heidegger and Gaddamer, pushed this idea further and came to the
conclusion that everything we know is only interpretation. Objective
truth and interpretation are impossible. This is the ‘new
hermeneutic’.263
Deconstructionists first applied their ideas to literature. They
assumed that no work of literature can give us the truth because our
interpretation of what has been written is conditioned by our own
situation, circumstances and language. When reading the text an
interpreter may ‘deconstruct’ what has been written, taking bits and
pieces out of the context they were written, and refit them into his own
framework.264 No one can understand what the text actually says;
objective truth is impossible; all we can gain is interpreted truth. The
150 Feed My Sheep
focus of interpretation is not on what the author intended to say, nor

on what the text actually says, but on what the reader interprets it to
mean.265
Clearly we are in the realm of pure subjectivism. The concept of
truth has become very slippery if not meaningless. No one can claim
that they have a better grasp of the truth than anyone else; no one may
claim that their world view is right, or that it applies to anyone other
than themselves. From this perspective no explanation, orientation or
world-view can be absolute. “Once we let go of absolutes, nobody gets
to have a position that is anything more than a position.”266 Today we
no longer have one overall story; “no single account can take priority
and we are left with a conflicting field of myths and stories. There is no
single truth, only truths.”267 Truth has been localised.268 People used
to believe in aiming at a bull’s-eye centre of an absolute and knowable
truth – today many have abandoned that quest.269
A contributing factor to this loss of truth has been modernity’s
failure to produce a world view or system of belief that has stood the
test of time. There have been various attempts to produce a
comprehensive perspective and make it hold; the most spectacular of
these are Marxism/Leninism and the Fascism applied in Nazi Germany
and Italy. Both have failed.270 Now postmodernists reject the very
attempt to establish a “metanarrative”. John Francois Lyotard, a
leading postmodern philosopher, argues that no narrative can pull
together all the details of social, economic and political life into an
overall story. We must, he says, abandon the attempt to find one grand
narrative. This is the post-modern position. No story has a privileged
status. Every story and world view is on a level playing field.271
Postmodernism’s view of truth obviously has philosophical roots.
We should not, however, underestimate the contribution television
has made in devaluing and fragmenting truth. To maintain the interest
of the viewer television breaks up its presentation into small fragments
of information. A person is only permitted to think about one matter for
a brief moment before being hurried on to the next image. Every
programme is a constantly changing series of images. Each
programme is itself broken up by advertisements – not just one, but

four, five or six – each of which carries the viewers into another world
or impresses on them the value of a different product. Television
producers aim “to keep everything brief, not to strain the attention of
anyone but instead to provide constant stimulation through variety,
novelty, action, and movement. You are required... to pay attention to
no concept, no character, and no problem for more than a few seconds
at a time.”272 These same principles are applied to the presentation of
the news; It is assumed that “complexity must be avoided, that
nuances are dispensable, that qualifications impede the simple
message, that visual stimulation is a substitute for thought, and that
verbal precision is an anachronism.”273 This approach to
programming and even to the presentation of the news militates
against sustained thought or a coherent understanding of the world.
Television is about “performing, not pondering. It is theatre rather than
thinking, entertaining drama rather than edifying debate.”274 By
presenting us with information that is irrelevant, fragmented and
superficial television works against an historical and contextual grasp
of where we are. In the absence of historical perspective and a broader
context it is very difficult to integrate all these fragmented pieces of
information into a coherent whole. People have given up trying. Most
do not attempt to sort out all this information in their minds. All this
data is filed away into separate little bytes. It does not concern a
postmodern person that some of this information contradicts other
information, or even whether all they see and hear is true. The image
is more important than the substance, style of more interest than the
truth.
This abandonment of the hope of a ‘grand narrative’ and the loss
of a clear concept of truth has a number of significant consequences.
Some of these will be developed in more detail as we examine other
related aspects of postmodernism. For now we note some of the
general consequences this has had in society.
152 Feed My Sheep
THE CONSEQUENCES FOR SOCIETY
One result of the deconstruction of reality is what has been called

“anomie” – “the loss of nomos [Greek – law] – the loss of any secure
sense of a meaningful order to the world.”275 In our culture there is a
feeling of rootlessness and disorientation. The basic meaning of life has
been questioned and threatened leaving many people in an unhappy
position. They feel unsettled and restless. If truth is only a matter of
interpretation then how can we be certain of anything? What can I
build my life on? What is the point of living?
Another consequence is an unbridled pragmatism. For many
‘truth’ has become irrelevant. In our consumer culture people do not
ask, “Is this true?” but, “What’s in it for me?”276 This reflects the
personalised pragmatism of our age – I want to know whether it works
and what I can get out of it!
A further effect of the loss of truth is irresponsibility. Modern
knowledge is non-committal and consequence-free. This is partly the
result of information overload. The Teacher writing in Ecclesiastes
observed; “...With much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more
knowledge, the more grief.” (Ecclesiastes 1:18). We can identify with
that when we read the newspaper or a magazine of world news. The
more we know the more anguish it causes. Yet, we know so much
about so many people it is impossible to be involved in the lives of all
of them. It is impossible to meet all the needs that we come to know
about. This impossibility produces paralysis; because we can’t do
everything we do nothing. Our paralysis is reinforced by the idea that
it isn’t my responsibility; someone else will look after it; the experts will
fix it; the government will step in. Os Guinness sums up the dilemma
of modern knowledge by observing; “Never has more been known;
never has less been required of what is known. From abstract
mathematical formulas to anguishing international atrocities, the
common reaction to modern knowledge is, ‘So what? Who cares?
What do you expect me to do?’”277
One more result of the loss of truth is a trend to the misuse of power.
Under Christendom power was regarded as a servant of the truth.

Those in power may not have applied this consistently but this was the
general understanding. In more recent times truth has become the
slave of power. Those in power manipulate the truth for their own
ends. Michael Novak, in his Templeton Prize Address, asserts; “Those
who surrender the domain of intellect make straight the road of
fascism.”278 When people are no longer concerned about the truth
they feel free to use any means available to gain and maintain power.
As truth declines tyranny increases. Frederick Nietzsche foresaw that
“the death of God would lead to the emergence of raw power as the
ultimate truth, power expressed through a superior race and a super-
man.”279 If there is no objective truth outside of ourselves then there is
no moral guide; consequently we are left to our own devices and the
principle that “might is right”. Nietzche’s ideas provided the soil out of
which grew Nazi Germany. In fulfilment of his words the cruel violence
and brute force of that regime have been imitated over and over in the
past few decades. These are horrifying examples of what happens
when the concept of truth is diminished and when people manipulate
it to their own ends.
THE CONSEQUENCES FOR EDUCATION
A loss of truth has had some serious consequences in society: A feeling

of rootlessness, a preoccupation with pragmatism, a sense of
irresponsibility, and the abuse of power no longer restrained by a
belief in Christian truth. The abandonment of truth has also had
consequences for education. This is a crucial area of society because
educators are training and influencing the next generation. Here I want
us to examine how this new approach to truth is reflected in the goals
and objectives of New Zealand education.
The following comes from an Education Department statement in
1904:
154 Feed My Sheep
The purpose of the Public Elementary School is to form and strengthen

character and to develop the intelligence of children entrusted to it... according
to their different needs... They can endeavour to... Implant in the children
habits of industry, self control and courageous perseverance in the face of
difficulties; they can teach them to revere what is noble, to be ready for self
sacrifice, and to strive their utmost after purity and truth; they can foster a strong
respect for duty and the consideration and respect for others which must be the
foundation of unselfishness...
Compare this with a directive from the Ministry of Education almost 90

years later:
The Board of Trustees will ensure that all students are given an education
which respects their dignity, rights and individuality. This education shall
challenge them to achieve personal standards of excellence and to reach their
full potential. All school activities will be designed to advance these purposes.
Note also the mission statement of a church school:
[The school] challenges its pupils to realise their uniqueness and inspires them
to develop their potential in a Christian environment through innovative
programs, high quality tuition and a wide range of opportunities.
These extracts illustrate how the focus of education has shifted from a
belief in the importance of objective truth and virtues to individualism
and the fulfilment of personal potential. This is part of a larger trend
away from content-based education to one which is child-centred,
from education that is orientated to knowledge to one which is
focussed on method and technique. Of course there may be some
gains through these changes – interactive learning can be fun and
interesting (but good teachers made content based learning fun and
interesting). An emphasis on the process of learning, however, has
reduced the content of what is learned. Universities often complain
that entering students cannot spell or construct a proper sentence.
Concern about the effect of child-centred education was highlighted in
a report prepared for the Education Forum, a group of people

concerned about the trends in New Zealand education. It claimed that
the child-centred method damages children and society and traced this
approach back to the colleges of education which were “hostile to
European inheritance and sympathetic to radical feminism, gay
liberation, and assaults on the traditional curriculum”.280 A ‘dumbing
down’ of educational standards is worrying enough, but of even
greater concern is the lack of desire to instil a body of knowledge and
a preoccupation with technique rather than truth. Rather than passing
on truth and sustaining culture the teacher has become a mere
facilitator, assisting the child in a discovery of their natural potential.
THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CHURCH
The postmodern view of truth has not only influenced society and
education but has also had a profound effect in the church. Sadly the
church has followed the world in diminishing the value of truth. David
Wells maintains there is an anti-theological mood in the contemporary
church seen in “vacuous worship”, “the shift from God to self as the
central focus of faith”, “psychologised preaching”, “strident
pragmatism”, and a “revelling in the irrational”.281 Theology has been
moved from the centre of the evangelical church to the periphery. No
longer is the church guided by a theological understanding. Theology
has been replaced by practice. In many churches and Christian
organisations the question, “Will it work?” is more important than the
question, “Is it true?” Being practical now substitutes for being
theological, for there is little left to theology except practice.”282
Ministers in the church are leading the charge toward pragmatism as
they become less and less theologians and preachers of the Word and
more and more managers and therapists. As examples of this trend
Wells points to the professionalisation of the ministry and the low level
requirements of some Doctor of Ministry degrees. In a further
illustration he notes that between 1980 and 1988 less than 1% of
156 Feed My Sheep
material in the Leadership magazine made any clear reference to

Scripture, let alone any theological idea.283 Os Guinness sums up the
trend succinctly with these words; “Theology has given way to
technique. Know-whom has faded before know-how. Serving God
has subtly been deformed into servicing the self... even at its best,
pragmatism results in evangelicalism rich in ingenuity and
organisation but poor in spirituality and superficial, if not banal, in
doctrine.”284
This critique could well be applied to what is happening in New
Zealand. Through the mail I received a registration brochure for
“Leadership ’96: A Christian Leadership and Management Training
Programme” run in Wellington and Auckland in October and
November 1996. The programme was mainly orientated around
twelve workshops:
1. Managing stress and preventing burnout

2. Effective time management
3. Managing change positively
4. The hard side of managing staff
5. Building teams
6. Assertive communication
7. Resolving conflict
8. Giving feedback
9. Running effective meetings
10. Marketing for agencies and churches
11. Strategic planning
12. Fun activities to involve groups
At the end of the following year I received a pamphlet advertising a

“Motivation” conference run by Team Consultants. The explanation
inside focussed on motivation, goals, “real power sharing”, delegation
and support for your team. It was advertised as a Christian training
programme that would equip people with the skills to lead
competently.
These programmes reflect the overall trend away from theology
and truth to an emphasis on management and technique. It is true that

we need to be efficient and good managers of our time; we need to run
meetings well and build a good team of elders; we need to learn to
manage the stresses of the ministry and prevent burn-out. My concern
is the emphasis given to these matters. One could be forgiven for
thinking that effective and competent leaders are those who have
learned the right skills. Yet what the church needs more than anything
else are leaders of Christian character who have a solid grounding in
the truth of God’s Word and the ability to communicate this to the
church and the world. When describing the requirements for elders
(leaders) in the church the New Testament puts the emphasis on
Christian character. Even his ability to “manage his own family well”
is indicative of his Christian character rather than his management
skills. The only skill required of the elder is that he be “able to teach”.
The story is told of Japanese businessman who made a comment to a
visiting Australian: “Whenever I meet a Buddhist leader, I meet a holy
man. Whenever I meet a Christian leader, I meet a manager.” It is time
to shift the emphasis away from managerial skills in leaders to leaders
developing Christian character and living holy lives.285
Wells contends that a theological vacuum amongst the clergy in
America is reflected in biblical ignorance and an “astounding
theological illiteracy” in the contemporary church.286 I suspect that his
critique would also apply to the contemporary church in New Zealand.
How many Christians here have a good grasp of the truth of the Bible
and a depth and breadth of theological understanding? Some of this
lack, no doubt, is due to intellectual laziness, but part of it is a result of
the postmodern idea that truth does not matter. Today’s church is
preoccupied with movements that have shifted the emphasis away
from theology and thinking to the relational, therapeutic, charismatic
and managerial. The emphasis in the church and among Christians is
not on the central doctrines of the Scriptures but on matters secondary
and relatively peripheral – spiritual warfare, healing, signs and
wonders, exorcism, tastes in music, counselling, the time and precise
details of the return of Christ. All of these have become distractions.
158 Feed My Sheep
More attention is given to a person’s personal relationship and

experience of God rather than to preaching and teaching. It is not that
the former is unimportant but rather that at the present time it seems to
be the sum total of people’s faith.287
Theological education reflects this trend away from truth. Whereas
the New England Puritans put much emphasis on theological
education, “dreading to have an illiterate Ministry to the churches,”288
the churches of the late twentieth century appear to have no such
concern. In the training of ministers more and more emphasis is put on
practical, “how-to” subjects rather than on doctrine, theology, biblical
languages and exegesis. This trend is by no means of recent origin. In
the eighteenth century a leader of the Methodist church, Bishop
Francis Asbury, contrasted study with soul-saving; “If you can do but
one, let your studies alone. I would throw by all the Libraries of the
World rather than be guilty of the Loss of one Soul.” His followers
added later; “We have always been more anxious to preserve a living
rather than a learned ministry.”289 A more recent and even more
brazen example comes from Billy Sunday: “If I had a million dollars I’d
give $999,999 to the church and $1 to education.” He used to boast
that he didn’t know “any more about theology than a jack-rabbit knew
about ping-pong.”290 Today it is not uncommon to hear individuals
and churches proudly claim that they have, “No Creed but the Bible”.
Ministers of the gospel will promote and defend this position. The
Pentecostal leader, A. J. Tomlinson claimed, “We have the Bible for
everything, and we have no creeds, rituals, or articles of faith.”291 I
recall visiting a church in Tauranga while on holiday and hearing a
sermon on why ministers did not need theological training. In support
of this the speaker pointed out that the disciples were mostly unlearned
men and not one of them had any seminary training. What escaped his
notice was that these twelve men spent three years of intensive
theological training with the best teacher and theologian the world has
ever had, the Lord himself.
By contrast, liberalism in the church in New Zealand has put a
strong emphasis on scholarship but, at the same time, has continued to
undermine confidence in the truth of the Scriptures. In November

1996 Dr James Veitch, a senior religious studies lecturer at
Wellington’s Victoria University, and an ordained Presbyterian
minister, declared that he did not believe that Jesus was the Son of
God. “As an historical figure he was not divine but created to be divine
by the church.... The church created Jesus....”292 Rev Bruce Patrick,
the minister of the Baptist Tabernacle in Auckland, objected to the
statements of Dr James Veitch. On behalf of seventy Christian leaders
who were widely representative of the Christian church in Auckland he
tried to place a brief response to those remarks in the Herald, but
without success.293 A Christian Coalition Candidate for the 1996
general election, Robin Corner, also responded by saying that James
Veitch should be sacked from the ministry. Rev Kerry Enright, the
executive secretary of the Presbyterian church, defended Dr. Veitch by
saying that the church had room for such people.294 Another example
of liberalism comes from a discussion document produced by the
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand that stated; “Absolute
belief can be static. Absolute belief can inhibit growth. It may be blind
to different facets of the diamond of truth. Jesus said. ‘I have yet more
things to teach you.’ Absolute belief may inhibit the ability to
communicate.... Absolute belief purports to be strong. It may in fact be
weak, fearful of letting go in case the whole belief structure
crumbles.”295 A statement like this reflects the loss of confidence in the
truth of the Scriptures. This document also raises discussion questions
about our orthodox understanding of God when it asks; “Why does
there seem to be an insistence on a definition of ‘God as personal’ as
a prerequisite for salvation? Why should the belief in a personal God
be regarded as superior or inferior to belief in God as ‘a spirit or life
force, not a person?’ Is there not room for all our descriptions, the God
of many names?”296 Raising these questions in this form suggests a
positive answer. Here is evidence of the church promoting a
postmodern view of the truth. A Listener article titled “Searching for
Jesus Christ at Christmas” quoted Paul Morris, Professor of Religious
Studies at Victoria University. Discussing the gospel records he said;
160 Feed My Sheep
“The question of literal, historical truth or untruth seems unnecessarily

crude.”297
These examples are part of the general loss of confidence in
Christian truth in our New Zealand society and in our churches. This
respect eroded at a much faster rate after the 1960s, producing the
current situation where everybody has their own version of truth. Not
only has truth become multi-faceted but people are no longer so
interested in truth itself – the issue of truth is secondary to its practical
benefit. Going hand in hand with the loss of a Christian world view and
understanding of truth is pluralism. The loss of truth and the advance
of philosophical pluralism are two sides of the same coin. We turn our
attention to this matter.
161
Chapter 5
PLURALISM IN
CONTEMPORARY
NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY
From the fourth century AD the Christian world view dominated

western society. It was challenged from the outside by other religions
such as Islam, and from inside by movements within the church such
as the Albigensians and the Waldensians in the twelfth century.
Despite these challenges the Christian perspective was generally
accepted. Its dominant position was undermined by the ideas of the
Enlightenment and the movements that followed. More recently the
rapid progress of secularisation has meant that the Christian faith has
been relegated to the fringes of life. This has left a vacuum in our
western world, an emptiness, a lack of a theological centre, thus
opening the way for pluralism. Today there is no unifying tradition or
ideology but rather a whole range of world views, cultures and
traditions. David Wells writes; “What was once a single universe... has
broken apart into a mass of smaller, independent worlds that are now
moving away on their own trajectories.”298 Os Guinness describes the
situation with this picture; “Pluralisation sees to it that there is no
sacred canopy, only millions of small tents; no global umbrella, only a
bewildering range of pocket umbrellas for those who may care to have
one.”299 Secularisation is the background cause of this massive
diversity, but secularism and pluralism each strengthen the other.
THE PRESENCE OF PLURALISM
In defining pluralism it is helpful to make a distinction between its

presence and its promotion. We must acknowledge the presence of a
plurality of peoples and ideas in the western world, including New
162 Feed My Sheep
Zealand. Pluralism in this sense refers to the sheer diversity around us

in race, language, heritage, culture and religion.300 Os Guinness
describes pluralism in this strict sense as “a social condition in which
numerous different religious, ethnic, and cultural groups live together
in one nation under one government.”301 Such a situation is closely
tied in with capitalism which “– unlike socialism or totalitarianism –
leaves room for the development and maintenance of a multiplicity of
ideas, institutions, and ways of life.302 Pluralism has been compared to
a smorgasbord luncheon with its great variety of foods, to “a carnival
with a never ending array of sideshows”,303 as well as to a shopping
mall with its huge range of boutiques and specialist stores.
The shrinking of the world to a ‘global village’ has been a significant
contributor to pluralism. In previous centuries the world was orientated
around nation states each with their own story and culture. In the
second half of this century, with the advances in computer technology
and communication, the world has become smaller. Improvements
and cost-cutting in telephone links, the advent of faxes and email, the
ease and relatively low cost of flying – all of these have linked people
in the world as though they were living in the same town. Since World
War II immigration has produced a mix of races, cultures and religions
in many countries of the western world. The arrival of the global village
has brought the ideas and belief systems of other cultures into our own
society. Our postmodern world experiences a constant and increasing
exchange of information, ideas and beliefs.304 We no longer live in
isolation from other stories and cultures – rather we live with a plurality
of views.
This plurality came to New Zealand slowly due to a tight
immigration policy that restricted immigration primarily to English
immigrants and other selected Western European countries. Since the
1960s large numbers have come from the Pacific Islands, especially
Samoa, Tonga, the Cook Islands and Nuie, most of whom have settled
in Auckland. Until recently, however, apart from the Pacific Islanders,
New Zealand has remained largely bi-cultural, ie. Maori and Pakeha.
It is only in the last couple of decades that New Zealand’s immigration
Pluralism in NZ Society 163
policy has loosened to allow significant numbers of immigrants from a

wider range of countries including Asia, South Africa and the Middle
East. Our own congregation numbers about 350 people and includes
representatives of about ten different countries.
New Zealand used to be held up as the ideal of racial harmony.
During the last generation, however, cracks have started to show in
that veneer. We are having to take a sober and serious look at the past,
to admit wrongs, and to redress these where possible. There is a great
danger of polarisation between Maori activists and right wing Pakehas.
This racial tension is not confined to Maori/Pakeha relationships; it can
also be seen in the tensions between various polynesian groups.
Recent immigration from Asia and Africa has also raised concerns in
the minds of many, as was evident in the dramatic increase in support
given to Winston Peters in 1996 when he raised questions about
government immigration policies. His comments prompted a
nationwide debate on the issues of race and demographic balance.
The move from a ‘first past the post’ electoral system to a MMP
(mixed member proportional) illustrates and reinforces the pluralism
of our society. It has encouraged a greater number of smaller parties,
increasing the range of choice, and reflects the pluralism in our society.
This form of pluralism looks set to stay. But we need to take our
definition further.
THE PROMOTION OF PLURALISM
Pluralism is not just about variety, but about extreme variety.305 Today
we are witnessing not only the presence of a diversity of cultures but the
active promotion of this diversity. In this broader sense pluralism goes
beyond a plurality of cultures and traditions; it not only allows for a
great range of thought and practice but also approves it. All views are
to be tolerated, accepted, even welcomed. Postmodernists celebrate
the confusion and pluralism of our culture. Diversity is cherished and
affirmed, both by the media and by intellectuals. The vision of Paul
164 Feed My Sheep
Morris, Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University, for the

new millenium is of a series of eclectic global religions – a little bit of
everything – a smorgasbord of religious belief. “You can go to yoga
and go to church. You can meditate on Mondays and go to a
channeller on Wednesdays. There is a pick and choose.”306
Philosophical pluralism promotes the view that no ideology or
religion may claim to be intrinsically superior to another. Any such
claim is necessarily wrong. “The only absolute creed is the creed of
pluralism. No religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true, and
the others false, or even (in the majority view) relatively inferior.”307
You may say, “This is true”, as long as you do not add, “Therefore, that
is false”.308 Paul Windsor believes “this is the foundational ‘-ism’ of our
culture.... It spawns all other ‘-isms’ and legitimises them.”309 The
affirmation of pluralism is inextricably linked to the loss of truth – if
there is no “Truth”, and no overall story, then each one must tell his
own story and we must simply accept their right to do so. This attitude
makes people unwilling to be dogmatic about the truth of their own
position. Rather than assert, “This is true”, they are only willing to say,
“This is true for me.” G. K. Chesterton, writing before these ideas took
hold on society generally, described such an attitude as a misplaced
humility – rather than being humble about our opinion, which is a
commendable humility, we are humble about the truth itself. As a
result the supreme virtue in our postmodern pluralistic situation is
tolerance – but tolerance of a peculiar variety.
THE VIRTUE OF TOLERANCE
In our pluralist society the cardinal virtues are tolerance and broad-
mindedness, while the chief postmodernist sins are being judgemental,
intolerant, narrow-minded, thinking that you have the only truth, and
trying to enforce your values on anyone else.310 Yet postmodern
people have changed the meaning of intolerance: It “used to refer to
bigotry and prejudice – that is, attacking people or excluding them
because of who they are or what they think.... But now, intolerance
often means simply asserting that some beliefs are true and others are
false.”311 We have come to a situation where a person is not permitted
to question the position of anyone else; where we must leave everyone
totally free to choose their own viewpoint and do their own thing.
Carson comments that “In a relatively free and open society, the best
forms of tolerance are those that are open to and tolerant of people,
even where there are strong disagreements with their ideas.” This form
of tolerance allowed for “a spirited debate over the relative merits of
this or that idea”, while also engendering “a measure of civility in
public discourse.” Today, however, we are urged to be tolerant of the
ideas of others. “The result of adopting this new brand of tolerance is
less discussion of the merits of competing ideas – and less civility. There
is less discussion because toleration of diverse ideas demands that we
avoid criticising the opinions of others.... There is less civility because
now there is no inherent demand, in this new practice of tolerance, to
be tolerant of people.”312 Morrow, writing about A Nation of Finger
Pointers makes the same observation; “When old coherences break
down, civilities and tolerances fall away as well.”313 Under the new
regime of tolerance we must simply accept the validity of everyone’s
ideas, no matter how confused or perverse they might be; the truth or
error of a person’s behaviour or position cannot be debated; we
cannot even declare that a person’s views are false, or their position in
error. Rightly, some are questioning the sanity of this attitude.
Agnes-Mary Brooke, a Nelson based writer on socio-economic
subjects, raised a concern about the decline of manners in traditionally
respected institutions and ceremonies. She objected to the notion of
turning “libraries into quasi-drop-in centres”. After attending the
capping ceremony of Canterbury University she was deeply disturbed
by the “displays of yoboism” coming from “members of the public
obviously more used to attending football matches than a ceremony
highlighting scholarly pursuits.” Such displays included yahooing,
whistling, giggling in groups, shrieking, loud calling out while others
were being capped and congratulated. Brooke was not convinced by
166 Feed My Sheep
the justification of such behaviour given by a senior staff member of the

university who repudiated “draconian prohibitions”. She argues that
“excessive tolerance has become servility” and that our social
cohesion as a nation is threatened by our tolerance of the loud-
mouthed and assertive. Educated New Zealanders, she argues, have
become too passive; their withdrawal has allowed a “general sliding of
standards” and contributes to our increasing social disintegration.314
Her comments make the point that tolerance has gone too far – it
allows for views and behaviour that ought not to be tolerated.
Postmodernists themselves, however, have become very
intolerant. Here is the irony of our situation. Pluralists regard all
positions as negotiable, except their own.315 No one may question or
debate the position of pluralism. Its truth, it seems, is self-evident or, at
least, so widely accepted as to be beyond question. Many people and
groups in our society will advocate tolerance but when another view is
presented will become extremely defensive and hostile. Lance Morrow
describes these people as the “candlesnuffers of behavioural and
political correctness”. These “busybodies” go about seeking to control
the behaviour of others “accomplishing intolerance in the name of
tolerance, regimentation in the name of betterment.”316 In New
Zealand some of the most consistent examples of intolerance are
directed towards Christians. In his news show, television broadcaster
Paul Holmes is generally antagonistic to Christianity, as illustrated in
recent years with his treatment of the Closed Brethren and his handling
of the opposition of the Christian Heritage Party to homosexuality. We
are in a situation today where all views are tolerated, except the
Christian view, because it is declared to be intolerant.
THE RESULTS OF PLURALISM
Pluralism promotes a separation and segmentation in society. Some

segmentation occurs naturally, as when people of the same culture
and race congregate in the same geographical area. This is most
striking in Auckland with a concentration of Maoris in Otara, Samoans

in Mangere, and Asians in Howick. Difficulties arise, however, when
one group presses this separation further than simply a desire to live in
a certain geographical location. One example of this is the Ngati Kahu
sub-tribe along the North Island’s Wairoa river who refused to pay the
registration fee for their dogs claiming that a dog is a taonga (treasure)
protected by the Treaty of Waitangi. Another instance occurred in
January 1995 when Wanganui Maori Kirk McRitchie was caught
fishing for trout in the Mangawhero river without a license. A district
court found him not guilty on the ground that he had been exercising
his treaty right to fish in his tribal river. Maori leaders agree with this
decision, but former Attorney-General Paul East argued that “there
should be one law for all New Zealanders in respect to trout fishing.”
Another issue is whether Maoris have rights to use whales and other
marine mammals. This will bring them into conflict with environmental
lobby groups.317 These are examples of how pluralism separates
people into small groups with their own special interests.
Not only do people live side by side but so do ideas and theories.
In our present society different views are tolerated even though they
may conflict with each other. Gene Veith illustrates how this might
work out in the area of psychology; “For example, if you need
psychiatric help, you might be treated by a Freudian, a Jungian, a
humanist, or a behaviourist. Your treatment might consist of telling
about your childhood, recording your dreams, getting in touch with
your feelings, or exposing yourself to operant conditioning.” He points
out the inconsistency and difficulty of this situation; “The philosophies
behind these psychological theories are incompatible – Freud and the
behaviourists cannot both be right – and the methodologies are
untestable.”318 Another example of this blending of contradictory
ideas is found in President Bill Clinton. In an Essay article Time
magazine named him ‘The First Postmodern President’.
Call him the son of the White Queen, who, as she told Alice, sometimes
‘believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast’.... This
168 Feed My Sheep
postmodern president is left and right, which seemed logically impossible just
yesterday. And what a lovely campaign strategy it is.... Hence a baffling
question: Why does the electorate go for Clinton’s “You can have it all”
strategy?
Call it the Winnie-the-Pooh syndrome. When Pooh was asked whether he
wanted honey or jam on his bread, he replied, “I’ll have both – but I won’t take
the bread.” Today’s voter is a perfect complement to the postmodern
presidency. The electorate has been “deconstructed”, meaning those who
have traditionally heeded the call of class, religion or ethnicity have become
nimble-footed shoppers in the market of political goodies.”319
We need to consider the consequences of this approach. One result is

that the truth is devalued. Many do not consider the truth of what they
believe or do – they are simply unthinkingly caught up in the latest fad
or fashion or, like President Clinton, are instinctively following a
pragmatic course that will win votes. When people hold contradictory
ideas without trying to work these out in some way then the truth will
suffer. Postmodern pluralism makes all views relative and cuts off any
meaningful discussion of ideas that people hold, making genuine
dialogue impossible.
A further result of these different ideas and conflicting voices vying
for attention is a “bewildering cacophony.”320 Many different ideas
and beliefs around us provide us with a massive range of options. This
is even more so now than in the modern or premodern era. In those
former periods the acceptance of the predominant world-view
conditioned the choices an individual would make. Today, however,
the climate has changed; there is no generally accepted world-view
that predetermines a person’s selection. People are aware of the
choices they have and they make them freely.321 In a smorgasbord
society there are endless decisions that have to be made. Choice has
become not only a “state of affairs” but also a “state of mind”.322
People regard the freedom to choose as a right, a non-negotiable;
choice has become one of the idols of our time.
An increase in choice means a decline in commitment; “the
extension of choice leads to the evasion of choice.”323 When a person
is confronted with too many options and possibilities they find it hard
to make up their mind. Instead they stall and flit from one thing to
another without committing themselves to any one thing. For these
people the range of choice becomes too much; like people
overwhelmed by the noise and confusion of a fair, or dazed by the
endless variety of a shopping mall. The very variety makes it
impossible for some to choose – they are paralysed by the range of
choice. This massive diversity has had a profound effect on the
Christian faith and on churches.
PLURALISM AND THE CHURCH
The decline in commitment evident in society is also evident in the

Christian church. Pluralism and choice act like a “non-stick coating”
on the Christian faith.
Pluralisation “acts like a spiritual Teflon, sealing Christian truth with a slippery
surface to which commitment will not adhere. The result is a general increase
in shallowness, transience and heresy. Picking, choosing and selectiveness are
the order of the day. Asked once about her beliefs, Marilyn Munroe replied, ‘I
just believe in everything – a little bit.’ Many Christians are only slightly
different. Doctrinal dilettantism and self-service spirituality are all part of the
trend towards an effete gourmet godliness.”324
Again, this has its roots in a loss of truth. Generally speaking, Christians
in New Zealand lack a commitment to doctrine – their choice of a
church is not guided so much by theology or truth as by personal
preferences and tastes. In the religious supermarket of this new
millennium every individual can download their own personalised
faith from the internet.325 A striking illustration of ecclesiastical freedom
of choice is the electronic church. In North America every individual
can choose his own church and, from his armchair, with the press of a
button, can switch from one church to another. Such options for
televised “church” have recently become available in New Zealand,
170 Feed My Sheep
although it is difficult to estimate how many use it as a substitute for the

real thing.
However, we don’t need the electronic church to provide us with
this “gourmet godliness”. The current ecclesiastical scene here
presents Christians with a great diversity of churches – people can pick
and choose exactly what suits them, and they do. Some attend a
church because they like the style of worship, others go down the road
because the music appeals to them, still others go elsewhere because
they “gets something out of the service” or the sermon “speaks to
them”. When they tire of that style, the sermons, the music, they flit off,
like spiritual butterflies, to another church where things are more to
their liking. Few churches will press the point of commitment because
we too have absorbed the thinking of our culture in which you “make
your own choice” and “find what suits you”. Gordon Miller of World
Vision describes how these “restless wanderers” approach church life
in New Zealand; “Whereas they once attended church out of loyalty to
God and the institution, now they increasingly go to church because
they are searching for experiences of God. So if they can’t find the
experiences at their own church, they change churches, move
between several churches, or even stop attending.”326 Other factors
are also at work in the movement from one church to another, such as
the decline in rural parishes as younger people move to the larger
towns and cities. Even allowing for this there is a good deal of
movement between churches that is not driven by demographic or
economic factors, truth or doctrine, but rather by the consumer
mentality of church goers.
Another effect of pluralism has been the production of a broad
ecumenism that denies all differences and distinctions between people
and groups. This is nothing new: De Tocqueville, writing to a friend in
1831, described the tolerance of Protestants as “nothing but a huge
indifference”. More recently G. K. Chesterton said, “Tolerance is the
virtue of those who don’t believe anything”.327 David Wells contends
that the theological unity of protestant evangelicalism has grown “ever
thinner and more insubstantial”.328 Some of this is also evident in New
Zealand where moves towards ecumenicism have often been at the

expense of a sound doctrinal position. All too often statements of unity
reflect the lowest common denominator of the various doctrinal
positions of those coming together. In our current pluralistic
environment there is a distinct danger that the church will continue to
go down this track. Already church leaders are predicting that we will
see less denominationalism in New Zealand. Will we also see less
doctrinal clarity and commitment?
Under the influence of pluralism Christians might also be tempted
to adopt a broader and more tolerant attitude to the beliefs of other
religions. Many have already succumbed to this temptation as is
evident in the broad ecumenicism of the World Council of Churches
and in statements it has issued that clearly abandon the uniqueness of
Christ.329 We may also detect this broad tolerance in New Zealand in
the current ‘politically correct’ attitudes to Maoritanga. Michael Blain
offers this Christian response to Maori religion: “If the diffuse
spirituality of Maoritanga is recognised, it will mean a spiritualisation of
life. But here I am very conscious that pakeha must draw back from
speculation on what forms this affirmation and discovery will take. A
positive courtesy and goodwill we can offer, and the redistribution of
resources.”330 This approach suggests a broad and open-ended
acceptance of Maori spirituality. Yet, surely the church can offer more
than “courtesy and goodwill”? Christians have twenty centuries of
theological reflection to draw on as well as the creeds and confessions
of the church. I am all for the spiritualisation of life, but its shape and
form must be soundly and solidly Christian rather than be directed by
the mysticism of the New Age or the spiritism of Maoritanga. In the
third section of this book we will explore in more detail how we ought
to respond to this situation of a wide diversity of views and ideas.
Pluralism, we have seen, is not only present in our contemporary
society but is actively promoted. A new form of tolerance is advocated
whereby we must accept all ideas as equally valid. This approved
pluralism has produced a world where choice is part of life. All of these
factors contribute to the increasing fragmentation of our society.
172 Feed My Sheep
Chapter 6
THE FRAGMENTATION OF
CONTEMPORARY
NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY
The fragmentation of our modern world takes two forms;

individualism which has been a feature of modernity, and the growing
tribalism which is a feature of post-modernity. By individualism we
mean a focus on the individual in isolation from the group – the needs
and desires of the individual person are regarded as all-important. By
tribalism we mean a focus on the group or the sub-group rather than
the individual person. We need to examine these two features in more
detail.
INDIVIDUALISM
This has been a key characteristic of modernity and arises out of

Enlightenment thought. The Enlightenment encouraged people to see
themselves as autonomous individuals whose identity lay in
themselves rather than in any group relationships or communal
setting. This is how many regard themselves in our modern culture:
Each person is an individual entity with no essential relationship to
other individuals, each constructing and controlling his or her own
life.331 People see themselves as independent persons isolated from
others. In modern individualism we define who we are from within
rather than from our relationships or connections with others. We are
individuals who then choose to contract together to form
relationships.332 In Enlightenment individualism we are accountable
only to ourselves. There is a sharp focus on the human person and the
self – all our decision-making is guided by self-interest and the duty we
have to ourselves.333
The Fragmentation of NZ Society 173
If the Enlightenment provided the philosophical basis for

individualism the industrial and technological revolutions have
confirmed this trend in practice. Our large cities give us frequent but
superficial contact with vast numbers of people. The car has improved
our mobility but not our relationships; the telephone, fax and email
have increased our communication but not our community.
Technology has eroded our sense of togetherness and heightened the
individualism of our society. Perhaps the primary culprit here is
television. Watching television stifles conversation and allows the
individual to be absorbed in his own world. Sky and Cable television
have reinforced this trend allowing each person to choose exactly what
suits them. Such individualisation and fragmentation even extends to
television news. During the 1990s America saw a proliferation of
personalised news sources allowing every individual to find
information that interested them personally. Now people are able to
customise the news to their own taste providing each person with the
Daily Me.334 Such individualised news reduces the common pool of
information and increases the trend to fragmentation in society. We
could argue that this has the advantage that society is not conditioned
by what is broadcast from only one channel, thus encouraging
independent thought. Yet encouraging people to think for themselves
as individuals is quite different from an individualism that isolates one
individual from another. It seems the latter is the prevailing tendency.
Such individualism is not only an American phenomena but is a strong
feature of New Zealand society.
Individualism in New Zealand
This characteristic of our New Zealand pakeha culture is partly a result

of our history. Immigration attracts a certain personality type – a
person who is willing to break out of familiar patterns and to set out on
his own. In the early days an immigrant had to be self-reliant and
resourceful to survive in a new land and to make a living on isolated
174 Feed My Sheep
farms and in forests. Generally speaking we are a nation of lone

rangers, a collection of isolated units – every man for himself, you mind
your own business, you do your own thing. In a controversial book on
nineteenth century New Zealand Miles Fairbain has argued that our
society was founded by transient people who lived atomised lives,
without kinship networks or much social structure. Introducing his
thesis, he states:
The first claim in this book is that New Zealand’s social organisation was of a
particular type. It was gravely deficient. Community structures were few and
weak, and the forces of social isolation were many and powerful. Bondlessness
was central to colonial life. The typical colonist was a socially independent
individual. The other claim in this book is that atomisation can account for a
large cluster of the traits and trends which characterise the colonial social
pattern. Many of these were pathological, others benign and healthy. The
deficient framework of association produced appalling social problems of a
predictable kind – loneliness, drunkenness, violence. The same want of
interpersonal ties, however, also helped to prevent social problems of another
sort, collective protest and group disorder, and so assisted in maintaining
Pakeha New Zealand’s remarkable political stability.335
Evidence for the coninuation of this ‘atomisation’ can be seen in the

pattern of housing in New Zealand with separate homes surrounded
by lawns and high fences, and in privacy about income levels and
decisions we make. A golden rule of Kiwi culture is, “Look after No.1”.
“When we compare ourselves with Polynesian groups, the Pakeha
sense of the individual is evidently much stronger than its sense of
community. We have difficulty in accepting the leadership of another,
in conceding personal opinion to the wisdom of the group, of acting in
solidarity with others.”336 This isolation is especially true of New
Zealand European men. In his book on the Pakeha male Jock Phillips
argues that our early history made New Zealand males rough and
tough: If they were not, they had to pretend. This was the result of men
being together for long periods without the civilising influence of
women. To be a pioneer meant brawn, virility, excessive drinking,
looking after your mates, and being able to ride and sleep in the open
under all conditions. Tough men did not share their feelings – they
could handle it, on their own – further reinforcing their inner
isolation.337
Basic sinful human selfishness is, of course, a major contributor to
individualism – a one-eyed concern for your own prosperity and
security. Individualism is not peculiar to New Zealanders but is true of
western society in general, especially ex-colonial western societies
such as Canada, the United States and Australia. Preoccupation with
self is illustrated when husbands, wives and parents pursue their own
interests without regard as to how this may affect their spouse.
Similarly, many parents are seeking their own self-fulfilment and self-
interest without sufficient consideration for the well-being of their
children. As I was writing this chapter I heard a radio news item about
the rising rate of teenage drunkenness. It was reported that 200 youths,
some as young as thirteen or fourteen, were involved in a drunken fight
in Auckland. A social worker noted that many parents seemed
unconcerned about where their children were or what they were
doing, presumably being too wrapped up in their own lives. In recent
years this inherent selfishness has been reinforced by the self-esteem
movement.
Individualism and self-esteem
The Enlightenment view of the individual forms the background and

basis for the current pre-occupation with self and the self-esteem
movement. For some time the memory of our Judeo-Christian
heritage held in check the basic human selfishness of our society. Over
the past few decades this memory has faded. The 1980s were
appropriately named the “Me” decade, a description that also aptly
describes the 1990s. Self-centeredness is now promoted as a virtue –
evidence of just how far we have fallen from our heritage. Consider the
extent to which “self” has entered our current vocabulary in self-
176 Feed My Sheep
assertiveness, self-fulfilment, self-esteem, self-identity and self-

motivation. A Listener article entitled “Wizards of Id” pointed to all the
“self-help” books available that promise to help you “Find the Power
Within”, “Think Like a Genius” or “Become a More Interesting
Person”.338 In our present climate egotism is interpreted as a strength,
whining self-pity as a reason for others to take a course in sensitivity
training. Denis Welch, also writing in The Listener reports; “There’s a
widespread view that the cult of market forces has turned us into a
nation of me-firsters, so pre-occupied with personal gratification that
we’ll elbow aside old ladies in the street to get it. After all, our political
masters have spent the past fifteen years extolling the virtues of
competition, individualism and social aggression.”339 The older
virtues which promoted self denial and service for others “have been
drowned in a deluge of selfism”.340 “In a secularised age, with its low
cognitive ceilings and lost moorings, we have turned in on ourselves.
We now seek our access to reality only though the self, having decided
that neither God nor his revelation is any longer pertinent.”341 Carson
points out that today feeling good about yourself is regarded as more
important than a clear conscience, and your opinion of yourself as
more important than God’s opinion.342 Dozens of talk shows and
popular articles tell us to look after No. 1 because no one else will. This
self-help philosophy appeals to our individualistic culture.
Further evidence of this selfism is found in popular psychology
where every emotional disturbance or broken relationship is traced
back to a lack of self-esteem. This in turn, is traced back to the wilful
harm or lack of attention others have or have not lavished on us in our
past. Such blame shifting is sometimes carried to ridiculous lengths as
is evident in victimisation. In a desperate effort to protect themselves
some are all too ready to blame others for anything that goes wrong in
their lives or for perceived unfulfilled rights. Time magazine accused
Americans of turning into “crybabies” who see themselves as “eternal
victims”. These people “see the American dream not as striving
fulfilled but as unachieved entitlement. Cry-babyhood is all blame, no
pain, for gain.” The writer observed a “touchiness” in American
society that is “the visible fruit of the rise of self-absorbed

individualism.”343 Victimisation is present in our society as well when
people are ready to pass the buck for their actions. Others are to blame,
whether parents, society or New Zealanders’ favourite whipping boy –
the government.
Individualism and the church
Individualism in the wider society has rubbed off on the church

producing in Christians a privatised spirituality. Christians too have
become self-centred. Rather than seeing the church as a living
community of fellow Christians bonded together in Christ they see it as
a voluntary association of loose individuals. Preaching in the churches
also tends to cast the gospel and salvation in personal rather than
communal terms, putting the emphasis on what God can do for the
individual rather than on the covenant people of God and the body of
Christ.
Members holding such a view are more concerned with their own
needs rather than with a care and concern for others. In this scheme of
things “God is less the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ than
a Christianised species of the genie in Aladdin’s lamp”344 called on to
fulfil the selfish wishes of those conditioned to having their ‘needs’
instantly met and their desires immediately gratified. Preachers
keeping up with the church growth movement are encouraged to
conduct market surveys to discover people’s needs and find out what
they want to hear. Church life and sermons are adjusted to suit. The
prime evils today are unhappiness and unfulfilled needs. “If something
bad happens to us we are enraged because our lives are supposed to
be perfect.”345 As Churches we have absorbed the unrealistic
expectations of our modern world – we expect everything to go
swimmingly all the time and that the surgeon will be able to cure every
ailment. In keeping with this trend sermons become more
anthropocentric rather than theocentric – the focus is on the needs of
178 Feed My Sheep
the self rather than on the glory of God.346

Every action, however, produces a reaction. Having been
preoccupied with self there are indications of a move to another form
of fragmentation which is really an old form of tribalism.
TRIBALISM
Many in the western world are beginning to see that this emphasis on
the perpendicular pronoun has been misplaced. In reaction there is a
new sense of group identity, a solidarity which may be described as
“tribalism”. Increasingly people are finding their identity, “not so much
in themselves, nor in their families, nor in their communities or nation,
but in the groups they belong to.”347 Such groups are many and
varied: Green, gay, feminist, fundamentalist, pro-life, pro-abortion,
animal rights, natural foods, the disabled and AIDS victims. Even
Christians have become a subculture within society, with their own
radio station, TV programmes, music and bookstores.348
Postmodernism fragments people into cultures and subcultures which
are isolated, opposed and unintelligible to each other. “People are
segmented into self-contained communities and contending interest
groups.”349 The result is fragmentation and diversification. The
terrorist cell may be seen as a model of postmodern fragmentation.
Such a group “is segmented from the rest of society, insulated by its
own self-identity. The group recognises no values that transcend its
own. Fuelled by a sense of victimisation, self-righteousness, and group
solidarity” the terrorist cell will not hesitate to carry out mindless acts of
violence against other groups within society, those opposed to or
unsympathetic to their group.350 These groups may be described as
‘sub-worlds’ – ‘worlds’ made up of small units of meaning.351 A person
might live in a number of these small ‘worlds’, passing in and out of
them a few times during the day. Each ‘world’ has its own identity, its
own way of looking at reality, and each one is disconnected from
others, independent. The unity of the modern period has been lost.
The current emphasis is on separate cultures, not countries; on the

parts, not the whole; on sects, not religions. The world is breaking up
into rebellious factions and dissenting minorities, nowhere more
clearly seen than in the former Soviet Union.352 We see this growing
diversity in New Zealand with the increasing multiculturalism of our
society. The emphasis on things Maori and on separate Maori schools
also is part of this trend to segmentation.
Another angle to this growing group identity is the rise of
“generational tribalism”.353 Here members of a similar age group
identify themselves as belonging to an identifiable set. The most
familiar and well used of these ‘generations’ is the baby boomer group
– those born between 1946 and 1964. Many labels have been
suggested for those born after the boomers: “Baby-busters”, “Twenty
Somethings”, “Generation X”, the “Angry Generation”, “Latchkeys”,
“Mall Rats” or “Nowheres”. Attempts to define each generation, or
even each decade, with a particular label can be unhelpful in that they
oversimplify the complexities and nuances of each period in our
history. It is all too easy to attach a label to a generation and then
conclude that we have them all worked out. We may, at best, only have
a vague and distorted understanding of those people, who often,
belong to more than one group at a time.
Generational tribalism has entered the church with specific services
being aimed at particular ‘target’ groups. Many church leaders believe
the church must offer worship services with different styles to cater for
the diverse needs of each ‘generation’. One of the directors of Renewal
Ministries, Rev Ian Wood, notes that churches are slowly grappling
with meeting the needs of people who have grown up in traditional
churches as well as the needs of younger generations who want
worship to be dynamic and experiential. “And the reality is you can’t
put the two things together. Because if you do, nobody’s happy and
you have people dropping off both ends. So multiple worship services
are a critical key to a church becoming a missionary people. Different
styles for different generations.”354 In a similar way there is a trend to
ethnic churches where each ethnic group has its own identity.
180 Feed My Sheep
Television has also contributed to the splintering of society. For a

time it brought people together. There were a limited number of
channels and they arose out of the same culture and expressed the
same world view. Television contributed towards “a centrally
produced, standardised, and homogenous culture”.355 However, with
the introduction of cable Television, Sky and Satellite TV, people can
watch whatever they want. Contemporary television offers a huge
range of channels, each of which is aimed at narrow segments of
society, confirming each group in their peculiar view.
How long this trend to sub-groups continues remains to be seen.
Other analysts of world trends are predicting a trend to global unity.
Strobe Talbott writes; “I’ll bet that within the next hundred years...
nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognise a
single, global authority.” Each of us, he says, will be a “citizen of the
world”. He admits that nationalism has re-emerged in its “ugliest, most
divisive and violent form” but maintains that there is a trend to
globalization, a movement other observers have termed “McWorld”.356
In previous centuries people may have been individualistic but they
shared a common culture, a world view, a way of understanding
themselves and those around them. Enlightenment thought seemed to
be successful in holding the world together. It did not, however,
provide the utopia that was promised. The current collapse of
individualism is another instance of the twilight of modernity – we are
witnessing the crumbling of another part of Enlightenment ideals and
values. Yet the trend to tribalism is an over-reaction. Our Western
societies are lurching from one extreme to another – from individual
autonomy to group conformity.357 “The idealised vision of progressive
modernisation and global harmony has degenerated into violent and
deadly tribalism.”358 Increasingly the individual is minimised in favour
of the group. In Part III we will consider how the church ought to
respond to these opposite polarities. Before we do that we need to
consider a few more features of our present world. The next is
relativism.
181
Chapter 7
RELATIVISM IN
CONTEMPORARY
NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY
Again it will be helpful for us to see this matter in its larger perspective
and to realise that, historically, relativism is a recent phenomena. From
the time of Constantine until the Enlightenment ethical standards in
the western world were largely determined by the Bible. God’s law
formed the basis of morality. Right and wrong were determined by
consulting the Scriptures. People may have debated points of
interpretation and application but no one seriously questioned the
biblical basis.
The Enlightenment challenged the Judeo-Christian ethic by
undermining the foundation of ethics. Enlightenment thinkers argued
that morality ought to be determined by human reason, not by
revelation from God. Moral philosophers of the seventeenth century
put much faith in human reason and sought a rational and objective
standard for human action. They believed that free individuals would
be able to discover universal, binding ethical norms and that everyone
would agree on what they were.359 This was also the approach of
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) with his “categorical imperative”. Rather
than grounding ethical judgements in the Christian faith he wanted to
establish universal laws based on neutral human reason. The difficulty
with this approach is that free individuals using their own unaided
reason have not been able to agree on what is right and wrong. Nor
have they been able to develop universal laws that can stand the test
of time and culture.360 Enlightenment thinking and morality eroded
the Biblical ethic and removed the absolute standard of the Scriptures
with the result that now, in the modern world, there is no real basis for
determining right and wrong. This is what we mean by relativism. It is
the perspective that believes there is no objective criterion of truth and
182 Feed My Sheep
so no absolute standard for deciding right from wrong.

In a relativistic society the only two means of deciding how people
should live are public opinion or arbitrary power. The first puts
everything up for grabs because public opinion is never constant but
always changing. Consider the high profile given to public opinion
polls on moral issues – the people of the nation always want to know
what other people think as a guide to their own thought. The other
alternative is arbitrary power – might is right – he who has the most
power gets to determine who is right. Alexander Solzhenitsyn has
given us a comprehensive account of how this worked itself out in the
United Soviet Socialist Republic under Stalin’s rule. With horrifying
detail he described the prison system of the Gulag Archipelago and the
cruel systematic elimination of those who either opposed the people in
power or were perceived as a threat to their position. Neither public
opinion or arbitrary power provide a reassuring basis for ethics. The
majority could be sincerely and thoroughly wrong in their view. Nor
can we guarantee that the person who holds the most power has the
best moral position. Given that “all power corrupts, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely”, it is likely that the dictator is a tyrant.
Reviewing these alternatives we can see that the Enlightenment put
ethical standards on roller blades and built morality on shifting sand.
Moral relativism has also had the effect of detaching choices from
consequences. An example of this is the effect of the pill on sexual
behaviour. Prior to the introduction of the pill men and women had to
think about the consequences of their immorality. Maybe they did not
think about them at the time, but those consequences would catch up
with them. Now, with the widespread availability of this contraceptive
people believe they can have the pleasure of sex without the
consequent responsibilities.361
Relativism is clearly part of our New Zealand society. In 1988 the
New Zealand Herald reviewed our 125th anniversary as a nation
(1863-1988). Gordon McLaughlan reflected on the cynicism and
doubt that had replaced the early innocence of New Zealanders. This
has come about in part because we never clearly defined our values or
Relativism in NZ Society 183
embraced them as our mythology. “Without a national unifying

mythology and some sense of morality all things have the same value.
Trivia is accorded the same place in the national debate as matters that
ought to be of profound social concern. Outrage at injustice is strident
but scattered, diffuse, because values are out of focus.”362 His
comments confirm the lack of moral direction in our country, a
confusion that has only deepened since these words were written.
Sadly, illustrations of such relativism can be found in the church. In
April 1997 the Christchurch Press reported that Alyson Murrie-West, a
lesbian theological graduate, was licensed as a probationer for the
ministry by the Wellington presbytery moderator, allowing her to
preach in any Presbyterian church in New Zealand.363 The
controversy raised by this incident is part of the debate going on in the
Presbyterian church over the ordination of homosexual ministers.
When the church cannot take a clear stand on a matter such as
homosexuality it is hardly surprising that our wider society will
disregard biblical truth and morals. In the same month in 1997 a New
Zealand MP made outrageous statements to the effect that the Treaty
of Waitangi was more important than the Ten Commandments. It isn’t
surprising that such a view should be expressed; what was surprising
was the vehemence of the attack and the ridicule heaped on God’s
Word in the public debate that followed.364
In response to this moral confusion some are seeking to restore
some core moral values. Two programmes are being promoted for
values education in New Zealand public schools, one by former
Invercargill principal, John Heenan, and the other by an English
educationalist, Richard Whitfield, who has made a number of visits to
New Zealand. John Heenan’s programme is founded on what he calls
the eight cornerstone values of honesty, kindness, consideration for
others, responsibility, respect, duty, compassion and obedience.
Richard Whitfield, promoting a similar programme of values, believes
that “unless we radically rethink the curriculum, there is a great danger
that schools will wind up producing ‘clever devils’ – young people with
their heads stuffed full of facts but ill-equipped to form worthwhile
184 Feed My Sheep
relationships, take responsibility for themselves and generally survive

in the moral jungle out there.”365 Echoing this idea the Prime minister,
Jenny Shipley, observed that our purely secular education was not
working well and that parents, via the school boards, should be able to
promote religious, spiritual and cultural values. Bruce Logan, of the
New Zealand Education Development Foundation, comments;
“Education arbitrarily cut off from its religious roots has not
delivered.... Values have to be taught deliberately, with conviction.
Without reference to our religious traditions, that is very difficult.”366
Even if parents and school boards would agree to values education
there is still the question as to whose values would be taught. In our
present relativistic climate there is no consensus on this matter.
That point became quite clear when in 1998 the government
distributed a public discussion document, Toward a Code of Social
and Family Responsibility. A primary motive for this initiative was a
desire to rein in the ever-increasing expenditure on welfare ($25 billion
in 1998 – $70 million a day on health, welfare, education and
superannuation). It was hoped that this would raise a sense of social
responsibility amongst welfare recipients. Individuals, households and
organisations were invited to respond to a series of questions about the
current state and future direction of our society. There was a
widespread debate on the document itself and its obviously skewed
questions. When the results were finally published in October 1998 the
whole exercise turned out to be a dead duck. Only three substantial
proposals emerged and the rest was “a potpourri of woolliness and
apple pie.”367 This only highlights the impossibility of attempting to
instil values in a society that has lost its moral base.
185
Chapter 8
CONSUMERISM AND A LOSS
OF HOPE IN CONTEMPORARY
NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY
Christianity and its biblical values have been replaced with new goals
and different values. A regular family outing to the shopping mall has
become the secular equivalent of going to church, and an insatiable
desire for things has become the supreme value for most kiwis. A focus
on the world to come has been replaced by straight-out worldliness. In
this consumer society the shopping mall has been identified as a
symbol of postmodernism. The mall has replaced the cathedrals of the
pre-modern era. These bright and airy temples are filled with dazed
consumers worshipping the god of mammon. Soft music lulls them
into the appropriate mood for the purchase of this world’s goods. Such
purchases are necessary in order to keep the religion of consumerism
alive and well.
Consumerism began after the industrial and technological
revolution when the supply of goods exceeded their demand.
Continued supply required the stimulation of demand. New markets
had to be created. Manufacturers had to point out new needs within
existing markets. Rather than being a means to live, purchasing had to
become a way of life.368 A new breed of people arose with the specific
goal of turning desires into needs, luxuries into necessities. Their aim
was to nurture the covetousness inherent in our sinful nature so that we
would desire more and better: Shop at the Warehouse, Buy a Nissan,
Fly to London, Drink Milo, Eat Cadbury. These ad-makers are the
“Hidden Persuaders” of our postmodern era.369 They began their art
by seeking to persuade people on the basis of information about the
product. Increasingly, in keeping with the postmodern ethos, the
emphasis has shifted from substance to image, from information to
association. Advertising is not so much about selling goods as about
186 Feed My Sheep
selling a lifestyle, an image – giving us the “Marlborough man” and the

“Revlon look”.370 The techniques of the ad-makers are so powerful
that we have become convinced by their deception – we honestly
believe that we need all these things. Our present society promotes
greed and self-indulgence as virtues. Consider an advertisement
selling a television set that blared, “Welcome to the world of STATUS”,
or an advertisement for the Sheraton in Auckland which invites us to,
“Indulge in a Five-Star Fling!’”
The vigorous promotion of buying, getting and having reinforces
the materialism that is fundamental to our society. Materialism
emphasises the visible and tangible. It “gives primacy to what can be
touched, seen and measured. It focuses on having rather than
being.”371 The focus has shifted from finding our identity in what we
produce to what we possess, from a work ethic to a consumption
ethic.372 This approach to life teaches people that they can and should
seek happiness in the here and now. It extols comfort and pleasure,
personal peace and affluence. The most blatant pursuit of these goals
may be seen in Las Vegas, the entertainment capital of the world – a
“hypereclectic 24-hour-a-day fantasy-themed party machine”.373 In
1992 twenty million Americans and two million foreigners went to Las
Vegas, “a place devoted to the anti-puritan pursuit of instant
gratification – no waiting, no muss, no fuss.”374 The city promotes itself
as an entertainment centre for families. What this means, however, is
that Mum and Dad have a place to dump the kids while they squander
the family savings on cards and dice. Las Vegas is the supreme symbol
of America’s pursuit of selfish, instant and extended gratification.
Las Vegas, despite the new theme-park accessories, remains the epi-center of the
American id... still focussed on the darker stirrings of chance and liquor and sex.
If it is now acceptable for the family to come to Las Vegas, that’s because the
values of America have changed, not those of Las Vegas. Deviancy really has
been refined down. The new hang-loose all-American embrace of Las Vegas is
either a sign that Americans have liberated themselves from troublesome old
repressions and moralist hypocrisies, or else one more symptom of the decline of
Western civilisation. Or maybe both.375
Consumerism and a Loss of Hope in NZ Society 187
Although we have less money to spend such consumerism is

present in New Zealand. The kiwi dream used to be a quarter-acre-
pavlova-paradise. In recent years the blocks of land have shrunk in size
and are measured in square metres rather than perches, but the goal
remains essentially the same – a house, a car and enough money to
retire comfortably. New Zealanders are striving for economic security
and personal comfort. Even our watching of television is part of this
consumer culture: Hours of mind-dulling inactivity are spent as people
follow the in and outs of the fictional lives of the Shortland Street cast,
vicariously participate in sport and watch the game shows. More
recently, and more energetically, consumerism has found expression
in the thrills and excitement of the recreation industry – whitewater
rafting, jet-boating, paragliding and bungy jumping; and in overseas
travel – holidays to Fiji, Bali and the Gold Coast. And people are
greedy for more. New Zealanders have always been preoccupied with
gambling, a form of consumerism that must rate as the greatest waste
of time and money imaginable. We bet at the race track and in the
casinos. Among the flashiest ads on TV are the “Lotto” ads, convincing
devoted and hopeful gamblers to queue up on a Saturday afternoon
for the last-minute purchase of that lucky number. Pleasure, travel,
greed and the accumulation of possessions have become such a part
of our culture that hardly anyone questions these goals, even in the
pulpit.
CONSUMERISM IN THE CHURCH
Church-goers have also become consumers seeking to have their

‘needs’ met, their desires fulfilled and their wants satisfied. They are
less interested in the truth of a matter and more concerned with what
they can “get out of it”. Some churches have tried to appeal to these
people by preaching a “health and wealth” gospel – “Believe in the
Lord Jesus and you will be healthy, wealthy and wise!” Sometimes this
is known as the “prosperity gospel”, or “name it and claim it”, most
188 Feed My Sheep
obviously promoted by healing evangelists Benny Hinn and Kenneth

Copeland. Other churches have responded with a marketing strategy
for the church. “The religious tradition, which previously could be
authoritatively imposed, now has to be marketed. It must be ‘sold’ to
a clientele that is no longer constrained to ‘buy’. The pluralist situation
is, above all, a market situation. In it, the religious institutions become
marketing agencies and the religious traditions become consumer
commodities.”376 Pursuing this line some churches have sought to
supply the ‘needs’ of their customers. Some have conducted market
surveys to find out what people expect from the church. Others sell the
gospel by adopting a ‘What-Jesus-can-do-for-you’ approach. These
various marketing strategies reflect the prevailing emphasis in our
culture – the emphasis on self. In keeping with the current fads of self-
esteem, self-fulfilment and self-love Christians too are urged to seek
counselling so that they might find themselves, to attend a seminar so
that they may be empowered and achieve their full potential, to give
attention to their personal growth and to develop their mind power so
as to be in charge of their destiny. Rather than being a place to worship
God the church has become “a therapeutic centre for the meeting of
one another’s unchecked, unexamined needs”.377 Living in a buyer’s
market the church has taken up the philosophy of the marketplace:
The customer is always right, the customer is king; what the customer
wants, the customer should get.378 Instead of seeking the glory of God
as their “chief end” Christians are encouraged to seek fulfilment and a
happy life. Willow Creek puts much emphasis on the fulfilment the
Christian faith provides. Bill Hybels promises that there will be a
positive benefit from a life of faith. “Christianity is presented as the
answer to anxiety, pain, meaning, identity, self-esteem, loneliness,
marriage, sex, parenting, and work.”379 In taking over the marketing
strategies of the world the church has become conformed to the
surrounding culture and has lost her distinctive challenge. She has also
failed to point people beyond the passing pleasure provided by the
things of this world to the abiding blessing of the world to come. The
world and the church are too taken up with the concerns of this life, too
preoccupied with the here and now, to have a vibrant expectation for
the future.
This loss of hope is evident in New Zealand society, especially
amongst young people. Statistics for suicide provide the most haunting
evidence for this. In 1992 there were 493 suicides in New Zealand. In
the 15-24 age group 112 were male and 17 were female. Suicide is the
second most common cause of death after motor crashes in this age
group. It is also believed that a number of deaths in ‘accidents’
involving young men may also be suicides.380 New Zealand has the
highest rate of suicide amongst young men in the developed world.
Sociologists, educators and the government ponder the cause of these
shocking deaths. Many social causes may be mentioned, but the most
deep-seated and fundamental problem is that people have not found
a reason to live. The greedy consumerism of our society has not
provided people with a purpose for their existence.
Sadly, the church has failed to give people a realistic perspective on
this life and has failed to point them beyond these passing years to the
eternity that is to come. In a 1997 cover story on religion in America
Time magazine asked the question, “Does Heaven Exist?” For many
church leaders the answer was, “No”. Through “an apparent
combination of lay ignorance and pastoral skittishness” heaven has
been minimised. One of the most fundamental concepts of the
Christian faith has been marginalised. In public debates in America
heaven is “often just a metaphor for the concerns of a perfectible
secular kingdom of man.”381 Part of the neglect of the doctrine of
heaven is the good life we currently enjoy – many people are so well
off now they do not think about the better things to come. The
prosperity gospel preached by some church leaders reinforces this
concept. Why look forward to heaven in the hereafter when we can
have it in the present? Why anticipate the future when life here and
now is so good? Another reason for the neglect of heaven is that many
Christians think about it as a vague and misty place. They think of
people floating on clouds, playing harps, singing in choirs and of an
aimless eternity with little to do. Understandably, most of the young
190 Feed My Sheep
people in New Zealand have no joyful or compelling yearning for

heaven when it is understood in these terms. When we add this lack of
hope to the futility and emptiness of materialism it is little wonder that
many young people in New Zealand are living in despair and
hopelessness. They need to hear the preaching of the gospel, the Word
of life that centres in Jesus Christ, a Word that gives meaning to our
lives in the present and hope for the future.
SUMMARY
In the first part of this book we saw that preaching is the primary means
of communicating the good news about Jesus. God has commanded
us to preach the gospel. Down through the centuries God has blessed
the preaching of his Word for the conversion of the lost and the
building up of the saved. Pastors are called to preach the message of
the Scriptures in a way that is true to their original intent and that
demonstrates the relevance of this message for those living here and
now. To do this they must understand the times in which we live.
In the second part of this book we have briefly traced the movement
of thought in the western world that has brought us to where we are,
noting that today we live in a period of transition between modernity
and postmodernity. The main beliefs of the modern period still live on
– a confidence in man’s reason and an optimistic view of the future
based on our technological achievements. Intertwined with these are
new ideas that recognise the limitations of our reason and that doubt
our ability to solve the massive problems of the world through
technology. These new views, however, continue to exclude God from
the public arena. Postmodernists go on to question our human ability
to know the truth at all. This has encouraged the pluralism of our
society where every view is not only tolerated but celebrated. The
affirmation of such a plurality of ideas contributes to the fragmentation
of our society. In the modern era this fragmentation produced an
extreme individualism; now it is increasingly associated with a growing
tribalism. The loss of absolute truth and the approval of pluralism has
produced a relativism in morality. When people discarded God and his
revelation they lost any firm and sure basis for deciding between right
and wrong. Now these matters are decided by the majority or by might,
by the greatest number of people or by the person with the most
power. In the emptiness of our culture people are seeking to bring
purpose and pleasure to their lives by the accumulation of possessions.
What are we to say to the people of this society? How can we
communicate the message of the Christian faith to those who seem so
far from it? Where should we put the emphasis when preaching in this
context? These are the questions we want to consider.
192 Feed My Sheep
193
PART III
PREACHING THE GOSPEL

IN OUR POSTMODERN
NEW ZEALAND
SITUATION
194 Feed My Sheep
195
INTRODUCTION
From our historical survey, we saw that after the ascension of the Lord
Jesus Christ, Christianity had to survive and witness in a pagan and
pluralist world. In 313 AD Constantine initiated a change in the
relationship between Christianity and the culture by officially
endorsing the Christian faith. Over the next few hundred years
Christianity became the accepted and dominant world view. Despite
challenges this dominance continued on in western civilisation until
this century. However, the people of the Renaissance and the
Enlightenment had attacked the very foundation of Christian belief by
shifting the source of authority from God’s Word to human reason.
Over time Enlightenment ideas infiltrated people’s thinking, gradually
edging out a Christian mind. The loss of a Christian world-view
became apparent in the 1960s when young people threw off the last
remaining restraints of a Christian perspective and ‘did their own
thing’. Consequently, people in today’s setting do not understand the
language of the gospel as they did in past generations. Before the
1960s people were familiar at least with Biblical concepts and
language. “The task of mission was essentially one of proclamation.
The message itself was not foreign to the culture, and could be
understood by anyone with ears to hear. From the church’s viewpoint
many of the sheep may have been lost to the fold, but at least they
knew there was a fold and had some idea of what lostness meant.”382
This is no longer so. Christianity is no longer the prevailing world view
but merely one small segment of our society. There is a great ignorance
of the Bible and Christian concepts. Most New Zealanders are
biblically illiterate. As we go about the work of preaching and
evangelism we can assume that most of our listeners have little or no
understanding of the Bible or of the Christian faith.
In many ways, we have returned to the situation of the first century;
we are in a minority position in a pagan and pluralistic society. Yet
there is one important difference between the first and twentieth
196 Feed My Sheep
centuries. Pagans in the first century heard the Christian gospel for the
first time; Jesus had come, suffered, died, risen and ascended, and the
apostles proclaimed this brand new truth. By contrast, in our situation
today the gospel has been heard and rejected. This is a post Christian
culture in which the Christian faith has been deliberately discarded.383
Leslie Newbigin points out that the paganism of our western culture,
“having been born out of the rejection of Christianity, is far more
resistant to the gospel than the pre-Christian paganism with which
cross-cultural missions have been familiar. Here, surely, is the most
challenging missionary frontier of our time.”384
Our role at the beginning of this third millennium will be similar to
that of the church at the beginning of the first millennium – it will be the
role of a prophet. Rather than being part of the mainstream we will
stand on the outside looking in. Yet we are not on the outside as
uninterested bystanders. Not at all, for we have a deep concern for the
men and women of our society. We have a message from the Lord
addressed to the people of our culture.
This message is based on the Word of God. In the hey-day of
liberalism the church was too busy listening to the ‘wisdom’ of the day
and was asking; “What does modern man have to say to the church?”
This is the wrong way round. Instead we should be asking, “What does
the church have to say to modern man?”385 All that the church has to
say to modern man must come from the Scriptures. If it does not we are
merely passing on our own thoughts and ideas. These will be of little or
no help to people who need to hear words of life. Therefore, in order
to communicate usefully to our world preachers and pastors need a
thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the Scriptures. We need to
be well-grounded in the Word of the Lord.
Yet we also need a good knowledge of men and women today. To
be effective missionaries to our culture we need to understand how we
came to be where we are, and we need a good grasp of our current
situation. We cannot assume that we will know this automatically,
because the situation has changed so much in the last few decades,
and is still changing. We need to understand why our society is the way
Introduction 197
it is and keep abreast of where it is going. To be relevant to a new

situation does not mean that we should alter the essential message of
the Christian faith. Instead we need a critical evaluation of our present
context and the application of the unchanging truth of the Scriptures to
this changing world.
In many respects the present outlook is sobering. There are
examples of heresy as churches become careless about the truth; of
blasphemy as Christians lose their reverence for the Lord; of nonsense
as evangelical believers get caught up with whatever is current; of
weirdness as Christians become weak and flabby in their
understanding of the Bible and vulnerable to leaders who have an
“appearance of wisdom” (Colossians 2:23) but who preach false
doctrine and error. Our growing pluralism provides fertile ground for
the rapid growth of alternatives to the gospel. These include a revival
of pre-Christian paganism promoted by liberal churches, as well as
speculative gnosticism dressed up in its New Age clothing. The
widespread disintegration of marriage and the family contributes to
crises that mount up year by year. Our postmodern disregard for truth
raises many questions and doubts in people’s minds.
In the light of these problems some may feel pessimistic about the
possibilities of reaching New Zealanders with the gospel. After all,
churches have been trying to do this for some time and have constantly
sought new strategies to reach the lost and cause the church to grow.
One technique after another has been attempted. We have seen a
succession of visiting speakers from North America promoting one or
another programme. Various targets have been set for the
evangelisation of New Zealand and denominations have promoted a
decade of evangelism. As yet we have seen little fruit for all this effort.
One writer reflects on our situation in these words; “Things are not
good in New Zealand. The life of the Church in New Zealand is not
healthy. The Christian movement in New Zealand over all, is in
decline.... Our backs are to the wall; the tide is currently turning against
us, but there are little signs that the tide could be going to turn.”386
While we need to be realistic about our present situation we need not
198 Feed My Sheep
be pessimistic. We are called to be witnesses for the Lord. There is a

time of sowing and a time of reaping. Some plant a seed, others water
it, but God makes it grow (1 Corinthians 3:6). Here is an opportunity
to proclaim the gospel and we must make good use of it.
Furthermore, there are also some more hopeful signs. With the
decline of modernism some of Christianity’s traditional rivals, such as
humanism, secularism, Marxism, and Freudianism, are at their lowest
ebb for four hundred years.387 The church is in bad shape but the
opponents of the church are also in disarray. This presents the church
with a great opportunity to present the gospel in a powerful and
persuasive way. There are also some positive aspects to preaching the
gospel to this nation. We live in a small country and this makes the
population reachable. We have a comparatively short history and so
we are not weighed down by a long tradition of having to do things in
a certain way. Although New Zealand has remained a homogenous
society for most of her history she has been open to new ideas. Our
small size has meant that new thoughts are easily taken up and
implemented. One obvious example of this is the way New Zealand led
the world in the welfare reforms of the late nineteenth century. Another
example is the rapid application of the free enterprise economic
policies of the 1980’s which became known as ‘Rogernomics’. The
smallness and newness of New Zealand makes us more receptive to
change. Consider too that the Bible has never been more available for
people and we have the benefits of communicating and disseminating
information by modern technological means such as the world wide
web and electronic-mail. Finally, our confidence lies in the sovereignty
of God and in the power of the Holy Spirit to change the hard and cold
hearts of our hearers so that they truly repent and believe in the Lord
Jesus.
That God is sovereign does not mean that we can sit back. To be
good witnesses in New Zealand Christians must be prepared to stand
apart from the culture and society. One major problem in Western
European culture was that many people regarded themselves as being
Christians and as part of the church, when they were not – they were
Introduction 199
hypocrites. The present situation provides the church with a new

opportunity for witness. Here is a new challenge for the church
because there are clear lines between the church and the world. Brian
Carrell, speaking to Anglicans, addresses this issue by saying; “it is no
longer going to be enough to be carried along on the coat-tails of our
predecessors, letting our Christianity be little more than a modicum of
decency plus an occasional visit to church. It needs more private
passion and public profession.”388 We are to be a pilgrim people,
bearing witness for the Lord as people whose citizenship is in heaven
(Philippians 3:17-21). As the people of God we are called to “live such
good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing
wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he
visits us” (1 Peter 2:12). We who are ministers of the gospel need to be
godly in our lives, living as examples to those around us. We also need
to be men who obviously and sincerely believe the Bible and who
preach it with ability, clarity and conviction. Our task is to preach to
believers so that they are equipped and motivated to live out and speak
forth their faith. Then they will be able to proclaim the truth of God’s
Word with courage and power. They will be able to live as Christians
in the place God has put them, in their sphere of activity and influence.
Our task as believers “is to show our nation that there is another way
of looking, another way of living, another way of understanding the
universe and our place in it, another way that begins and ends in Jesus
Christ.”389
Our mission field is right here, on our doorstep, over the back fence,
in our workplace. Certainly we have a mission responsibility overseas,
but we need to recognise that we live in a society where approximately
90% of New Zealanders do not have a saving faith in Christ. We need
to “make disciples of all nations” beginning in this country (Matthew
28:19). We are ambassadors of Christ, proclaiming the good news
about Jesus, urging that people “Be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians
5:20). Introducing the papers of the 1993 Vision New Zealand
Congress, Bruce Patrick wrote; “New Zealand’s majority culture,
media-massaged and educated to be more secular than most,
200 Feed My Sheep
inoculated against the life-changing power of the gospel by long

exposure to religious formalism and caricature Christianity, now needs
missionaries as skilled and dedicated as any in the world.”390 How can
we, as preachers, address our congregations who are living in a post-
Christian New Zealand society, and how can we address unbelievers
with the message of the gospel? What do New Zealand preachers need
to emphasise in the light of our history and present context?
201
Chapter 1
PREACH THE
REALITY OF GOD
In response to a secular culture where many people either deny the

existence of God or ignore him, Christians, and especially preachers,
need to affirm the reality of God – that “He is There and He is Not
Silent”.391 In Old Testament times this is what the prophets did. They
preached this truth to the many in Israel who gave prominence to the
idols of the surrounding cultures and who relegated God to the
sideline. The prophets boldly proclaimed that the Lord was God and
that he was the Maker of the heavens and the earth. He was the true
God, he was supreme and sovereign and he did whatever he pleased.
Elijah prayed that God would answer him by sending fire from heaven
on his soaked sacrifice; “so these people will know that you, O Lord,
are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.” When the
Lord did indeed answer with fire the people fell prostrate on the
ground and cried; “The Lord – he is God!” (1 Kings 18:37-39). Many
years later the prophet Isaiah pointed out the futility of Judah’s service
to idols and the reality of the Lord who is God. He pointed out that the
same wood used to make an idol was also used as fuel for a fire (Isaiah
44:12-20, cf Jeremiah 10:1-16). In striking contrast to the useless idols
Jeremiah prophesied from the Lord; “This is what the Lord says –
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and the
last; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6). The prophets
proclaimed the biblical truth that God is God. Following the primary
biblical method of preaching they proclaimed this truth so that Israel
would honour the Lord as God. We need to do this in our culture, pre-
occupied as people are with their garden, rugby and cricket, and the
New Zealand weekend. Without a living relationship with God through
the Lord Jesus people live in the present without meaning and
purpose, and they face the future without hope and light. Only through
202 Feed My Sheep
a knowledge of God and by faith in him can people find the purpose
for their existence. We need to recover a confidence in the Bible and
in the power of the gospel so that, with the Apostle Paul, we can
confidently affirm that we “are not ashamed of the gospel, because it
is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.”
(Romans 1:16).
This gospel is quite different from much of the religious experiences
that are being promoted today. We have noted that in recent decades
New Zealand has seen a growing awareness of spirituality, evident in
the popularity of the New Age movement, science fiction movies and
the use of alternative medicine. People today are thinking outside the
naturalistic framework of modernism and are no longer bound by
scientific rationalism. Yet it is distressing to see people by-passing the
transcendent realities of the Christian faith in favour of other forms of
religious experience. It is also disturbing to see that many Christians are
prepared to adopt these diverse forms of spirituality. Biblical
Christianity is being sacrificed in favour of the vague spirituality of our
postmodern age. Rather than accommodating the Christian faith to
the thinking around us Christians need to confront the world with the
orthodox truth of a transcendent God who has revealed himself to his
people through his Word, the Bible. We must proclaim this truth,
revealed in the Scriptures, communicated by the Triune God, evident
in the “True Spirituality” of the believer.392
The worship services of the church must direct our attention to the
Lord and his greatness. Through the Sunday services believers and
unbelievers are reminded that there is a God and a transcendent
dimension to life. Evangelical and charismatic Christians in New
Zealand tend to use the word ‘worship’ to refer to a time of singing
praise to God. To use the word in this way is too restrictive, for true
worship embraces all the means by which God is honoured and
adored. This includes listening to the preaching of the Word.
Preaching that directs our attention to God should be the highlight and
climax of worship. This is the contention of Charles Haddon
Spurgeon;
Preach the Reality of God 203
to rightly listen to the gospel is one of the noblest parts of the adoration of the
Most High.... Reverently hearing the Word exercises our humility, instructs our
faith, irradiates us with joy, inflames us with love, inspires us with zeal, and lifts
us up toward heaven.... True preaching is an acceptable adoration of God by
the manifestation of His gracious attributes: the testimony of His gospel, which
pre-eminently glorifies Him, and the obedient hearing of revealed truth, are an
acceptable form of worship to the Most High, and perhaps one of the most
spiritual in which the human mind can be engaged.”393
Preaching the Word of God is the foundation of true worship. If

preaching is weak in its content or misdirected in its focus the people
of God will find it difficult to give to God the glory he deserves to
receive. Those leading the service will be inclined to manipulate the
congregation with the use of music and song to attempt to stir up
feelings of worship. Many believers are happy to co-operate because
they “want a shortcut to faithfulness and love, praise and worship,
fellowship and service of God without having to do the hard work of
thinking about God.”394 But there are no shortcuts to genuine worship.
Our worship of God must be informed by the truth of God’s Word as
it is conveyed through preaching. The more we understand the truth
about God from his Word the better we will be able to praise and
honour him. A preacher’s great concern is that those who listen gain a
greater understanding of God from the Scriptures. This knowledge of
God ought to be the great issue for teachers in seminaries, preachers in
pulpits and Christians in churches.395 Carson comments that
“Preachers and teachers who do not see this point and passionately
hold to it are worse than useless: They are dangerous, because they are
diverting.”396 In his book on preaching John Piper puts this same point
positively. He maintains that people are starving for God. In all the talk
about people’s needs this is their deepest need; “Our people need to
hear God-entranced preaching. They need someone, at least once a
week, to lift up his voice and magnify the supremacy of God. They
need to behold the whole panorama of his excellencies.”397 Piper
explains that the burden of his book is;
204 Feed My Sheep
to plead for the supremacy of God in preaching – that the dominant note of
preaching be the freedom of God’s sovereign grace, the unifying theme be the
zeal that God has for his own glory, the grand object of preaching be the infinite
and inexhaustible being of God, and the pervasive atmosphere of preaching be
the holiness of God. Then when preaching takes up the ordinary things of life
– family, job, leisure, friendships; or the crises of our day – AIDS, divorce,
addictions, depression, abuses, poverty, hunger, and, worst of all, unreached
people of the world, these matters are not only taken up. They are taken all the
way up into God.398
Sunday by Sunday preachers must feed their people from the Word of
God, pointing them beyond their limited vision to the eternal realities
of heaven, directing their attention away from self-centeredness to the
worship and adoration of God our Creator. Preachers must preach
about God.399
PREACH THAT CHRIST IS LORD
Preaching about the reality and the greatness of God will enable
believers to overcome the temptation to privatise their faith. Biblical
Christianity should not be understood as a pietistic withdrawal from
the world. Christians ought not to lock their faith away in a
compartment marked, ‘Private and Personal’. Our faith is personal,
but it is not private. A preacher will have much to say about personal
faith in the Lord and a relationship with God the Father. But he will
also expound what the Bible says about marriage and the family,
business and social ethics, as well as the role and function of the
government. Christianity embraces everything we do giving us a
comprehensive outlook on all of life. It also provides us with a
perspective on the world that enables us to make sense of the broad
lines of history. God is working out the history of the world so that all
events ultimately serve the purposes of his kingdom. The ‘kingdom of
God’ describes the overall work of God in the world. Its scope is
broader than the other major themes that run through the Scriptures,
including both the themes of the covenant and of the church.

We could define the covenant as a relationship established by God
with his people that involves privileges and responsibilities. The
covenant focuses on the fellowship between God and his people seen
in the central promise of the covenant; “I will be your God and you will
be my people.” The church may be defined as the people of God called
out of the world and gathered under the spiritual oversight of the elders
for worship, nurture, fellowship, and praise; who then disperse into the
world as Christ’s servants and witnesses. Broader than these two
concepts is the Kingdom of God. This has been defined simply but
clearly as, “God’s people, in God’s place, under God’s rule”. It
describes the people of God (its citizens), living in obedience to God
(the King), in his world (his realm), in the totality of their lives.
Common to these three concepts of covenant, church and
kingdom are the people of God who are organised and structured in
these three arrangements. God uses the covenant as an instrument of
his kingdom. It is a means of gathering and nurturing the people of
God to live as citizens of the kingdom. Through the covenant God
preserves a people for himself and calls parents to pass on the truth
from one generation to another, teaching their children about “the
praiseworthy deeds of the Lord, his power, and the wonders he has
done.” (Psalm 78:4).400 God’s people are gathered into the church of
the Lord Jesus Christ which also functions as an agency (or
instrument) of the kingdom as it nurtures the people of God. Through
the teaching ministry of the church believers are trained, equipped and
encouraged to build each other up in their faith, to evangelise the
world in Christ’s name, and to promote the kingdom service of its
members. The members of the church are also citizens of the Kingdom
of Christ. They are called to submit to the laws of the King and to
extend his reign in society, calling other people to bow to his rule and
obey his laws. In this way they seek to extend the kingdom of God, not
only in their own lives and their families, but in the whole of society. As
the broadest description of God’s rule in the world the kingdom of God
calls the people of God to live as citizens of the kingdom in total
206 Feed My Sheep
obedience to Christ the King.

Preachers of the Word are not only called to preach the reality of
God but also to proclaim the breadth and scope of the kingdom and
the Lord’s calling that Christians live in obedience to him. All believers
are also called to promote the cause of Christ’s kingdom and extend
his rule in the particular place the Lord has put them, for his glory. We
do this in the awareness that Jesus is Lord over everything. If Jesus
really is Lord, as the early church proclaimed, then he must be Lord of
all or he is not Lord at all. He is to be Lord of our marriage, home and
church; but also of our business, our study, our factory, our office and
our classroom. He is to be Lord over our social life and our recreation.
That Jesus is Lord has implications for the television programmes we
watch, the magazines we read, the movies we see, the conversation we
have. Christians need to be working out the implications of Christ’s
lordship in every area of life – for medicine and business, politics and
economics, science and education. The Dutch theologian, Abraham
Kuyper, spoke about the scope of Christ’s rule and said; “There is not
a square inch of all creation over which Christ does not say, ‘It is
mine!’”401 Or, in more contemporary imagery; “The church cannot
become simply another customer centre that offers designer religion
and catalogue spirituality to the hoppers and shoppers of the modern
world.”402 Part of the task of the preacher is to enable the Lord’s people
to see the breadth of this kingdom and to challenge them to be effective
citizens of the Lord.
Preaching the kingdom of God, however, ought not to be reduced
to the social gospel of the liberals who see the fulfilment of heaven as
the kingdom of God on earth. Sadly many preachers in the church
have been so influenced by rationalism and liberalism that they have
lost sight of the transcendent and the supernatural. They hesitate to
proclaim the biblical message of a personal and transcendent God and
the future hope of heaven. They have flattened the Christian
perspective, reducing all Christian truth to the horizontal dimension.
But the Christian faith is nothing without a belief in God and a hope for
the resurrection to come. Biblical and effective preaching needs to be
theocentric, focussed on God, orientated to the vertical, forcing God’s

people to look up.
In response to the secular character of our society where God is
either ignored or rejected, preachers of the gospel need to proclaim the
truth that God is real and that he demands that we bring all of life and
all our activities under the sovereign rule of Christ. To preach the truth
of the Bible is to preach the reality of God.
208 Feed My Sheep
Chapter 2
PREACH THE
TRUTH OF THE BIBLE
Preaching about God will mean that we preach his Word, and that we
preach it as the truth. Yet the whole concept of truth is under dispute
in our society. Modernists, as we have seen, have their own view of the
truth, while postmoderns hold a different view. How are we to respond
to these people, especially in the contemporary situation where the
whole possibility of truth is disputed? What is a Christian view of truth?
And how is the truth to be preached? These are some of the questions
we need to consider.
A RESPONSE TO MODERNISM
One of the commendable features of modernism was its quest for truth.
Those living in the modern era believed that it was possible to know the
‘truth’, and they sought to find it. This quest for certainty was
admirable. Modern people, however, were mistaken in their basis for
truth and in their method for discovering truth. They sought to
establish the basis for truth in objective human reason. Enlightenment
thinkers believed that by means of human reason they could come to
absolute certainty. In leaving God out of the picture they claimed to be
wise. Yet, echoing the judgement of the Apostle Paul, “their thinking
became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they
claimed to be wise they became fools.... They exchanged the truth of
God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things, rather than
the Creator – who is forever praised” (Romans 1:22,23,25). Human
reason is limited and we cannot achieve certain knowledge on the
basis of our reason alone. True understanding is based on a
knowledge of God and reverence for him. “The fear of the Lord is the
Preach the Truth of the Bible 209
beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is

understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). Without this “fear of the Lord” no
one will come to true knowledge or understanding. Those in the
modern era also over-estimated our ability to be objective.
Postmodernists have correctly pointed out that all knowledge has a
subjective element; perfect objectivity is impossible. We come to know,
not only through our mind, but also through our will, and even
through our emotions. Our understanding is also shaped by our prior
knowledge. All knowing proceeds from certain presuppositions.
Everyone looks at the world through their own lenses and these colour
how they see the world. These presuppositions or assumptions about
reality may or may not be acknowledged but they do shape our
thinking. Modernists ignored the truth about God, overestimated our
ability to be objective, underestimated the influence of presuppositions,
and put too much confidence in reason as the foundation of truth.
Moderns were also misguided in their method. They believed they
could attain certainty as they used their reason to apply the scientific
method. But this method is limited. Not all of reality can be explained
in scientific or analytical terms. ‘Love’, for instance, cannot be taken
into a laboratory and subjected to scientific tests, neither can joy, or
sorrow. There are some things we receive as true that cannot be
‘proved’ or analysed by this method. We accept many ideas that seem
reasonable but cannot be absolutely demonstrated by means of our
reason; rather we accept them by faith or belief. Postmodernists are
right to reject human reason and the scientific method as the supreme
basis and means of achieving certain truth.
A RESPONSE TO POSTMODERNISM
On the other hand Christians should beware of buying wholesale into

the ideas of postmodernism or we will leap from the frying pan into the
fire. Postmodernism has gone too far in that it discards the possibility
of truth altogether. In rejecting the modern ideal of certain knowledge
210 Feed My Sheep
contemporary thinkers have thrown out the whole idea of objective

truth and sure knowledge. We can agree with those who claim that
absolute objectivity is impossible and that all knowledge has a
subjective element in it. We also agree that understanding involves our
will and emotions – knowledge is volitional and emotional as well as
rational. And we agree that truth is relational – it is shaped by the
community we belong to. This interpretive community influences our
understanding in many ways. But having said this we can still affirm
that it is possible to know and be certain about the truth.
Postmodernism rejects both these affirmations: It denies the possibility
of knowing the truth and abandons the quest for certainty.
The most obvious example of the denial of truth is
deconstructionism. Those who follow this approach maintain that
anyone reading a text cannot understand what the author intended or
what the text actually means. All a reader can do is establish what the
text means to him. All reading is interpretation without the possibility
of objective understanding. Yet, as Carson points out, deconstructionists
affirm a link between what they have written and their authorial intent.
They want reviewers to interpret their work correctly. In the real world,
despite the deconstructionist viewpoint, “we still expect people to say
more or less what they mean (and if they don’t we chide them for it),
and we expect mature people to understand what others say, and
represent it fairly.... True knowledge of the meaning of a text and even
of the thoughts of the author who wrote it is possible, even if perfect and
exhaustive knowledge is not.”403 In actual practice, then, we assume
that people will say what they mean to say and write what they intend
to communicate. People operate with an assumption that the truth can
be stated and understood.
Christians must guard against the influence of deconstructionism
when reading the Bible. We must operate with a biblical hermeneutic
rather than one that is postmodern. My aim in reading the Bible is not
to deconstruct the text in order to construct my own meaning. Rather
I aim to understand, as best as possible, the intent of the author, how
the original readers (or hearers) would have understood what was
written (or spoken), and then, how I should understand it today. To

adopt the premises of postmodern thought is to lose certainty and
truth, including the truth of the gospel. Church Bible studies conducted
in a postmodern framework of truth will not attempt to understand the
meaning of a biblical passage, but will decline into a general sharing of
ideas and opinions, all of which are equally valid, without any certainty
as to whose opinion is right. In the contemporary perspective the
question of who is right, or whose view is correct, is immaterial – what
is important is that everyone has the opportunity to share his thoughts.
This way of thinking has already infiltrated much of the church. Yet
Jesus assured us that we can know the truth (John 8:32). Truth is not
for everyone to decide for themselves but has been authoritatively
revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has been infallibly
recorded in the Scriptures. Anyone reading the Bible with a sincere
desire to understand it will be able to grasp its main message. In this
sense the Scriptures are clear and can be understood. Certainly, there
are passages that are difficult to comprehend, but the overall purpose
and thrust of the Bible is clear to the attentive and prayerful reader.404
Yet postmodernism has made truth relative and has prohibited
anyone from making the claim that he has ‘The Truth’. It denies that
there is such a thing as absolute Truth which excludes other truths. As
Christians we object to this ‘absolute’ assertion of postmodernism. Not
all ways of looking at the world are equally valid nor is it enough to say
that everyone’s truth is ‘true for them’.
If we do not maintain a tight connection with our theological traditions and

scriptural authority, we will have no basis for appropriately judging one story over
another. We must exercise the courage to boldly assert that not all stories will fill
the spiritual vacuum felt so deeply in the human soul. Recognising that there are
many things we can learn from other traditions is not the same as insisting that all
stories are equally valid. No one has ever been as open and compassionate and
engaging of divergent worlds as Jesus. Yet though he met people where they
were, he still led them to the well where living water was to be found.405
There is absolute truth. Preachers should not hesitate to make that

212 Feed My Sheep
claim, or even to highlight the truth by contrasting it with the errors of

our day. In the muddle and confusion of postmodernity we need to be
crystal clear as to what we believe, to define the truth in precise terms,
and to be willing to say; “This is true, that is false; this is orthodox, that
is heretical.” We need to be prepared to state the truth in contrast to the
thinking of our age.
Having said this, it is not enough to simply assert that the Christian
faith is true; we also need to defend the truth. We believe that the
Christian faith is defensible and that it can hold its own. Even more, we
can be used, through the power of God’s Spirit, to persuade people of
the truth of the Bible. Our faith can be defended in the marketplace of
ideas. What we believe is intellectually satisfying and reasonable.
Good evidence can be produced in favour of Christianity. We do not
demand any privileged status such as the church enjoyed for a long
period after Constantine, but we do want a reasoned and reasonable
debate on the truth of what people hold to and teach.
We have seen that modernists were too optimistic in believing that
they could attain perfect certainty by means of human reason as it
applied the scientific method. We have also seen that while
postmodernism was correct in critiquing this aspect of modernism, in
abandoning any claim to truth it has swung too far the other way. What
then do Christians believe about the truth? What are the main outlines
of a Christian epistemology? If we are to have clear answers about truth
for people today we need to reflect on this further.
A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF TRUTH
Christians believe that God has revealed himself in the created world
(Romans 1:18-20) and in his acts of history in times past (Psalms 78,
106, 107). He also spoke to people “through the prophets at many
times and in various ways” (Hebrews 1:1). Some of his deeds and
words have been recorded for us in the Scriptures, which is the Word
of God and objectively true. God has spoken finally and climactically
in His Son, who is The Truth and who taught us all his Father wanted
us to know. Jesus came to reveal God the Father to us; Jesus has
“made him known” (John 1:18). The writers of the gospels record the
historical events of the person and work of Jesus – his birth, life,
miracles, words, death, resurrection, and ascension. They wrote what
they knew to be true and recorded all of these events as historical facts.
The objectivity of truth
It is vital that Christians retain an emphasis and an approach that gives

a prominent place to the objective truth of an historical gospel. We
have a unique message, not because it leads to wonderful spiritual
experiences, but because it is true. In a moment I will give attention to
the importance of the subjective side of our belief, but here I want to
emphasise the objective reality of God’s truth. Truth is not primarily
subjective, rooted in our own experiences, but is objective and rooted
in the actual events of what God has done in history, especially in his
Son Jesus. The historic truth of God’s deeds is the basis for Christian
belief. The truth of what God has done is recorded in the Bible by the
prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New, all of
whom had a certainty about God’s truth.
They were convinced that God’s revelation, of which they were the vehicles
and custodians, was true. True in an absolute sense. It was not merely true to
them; it was not merely true in their time; it was not true approximately. What
God had given was true universally, absolutely, and enduringly.”406
Truth for the biblical authors was “objective, public, and

authoritative.”407 If we abandon a truth-orientated approach that is
grounded in history then we have abandoned the gospel, both the
gospel of the Old Testament and that of the New.
This objective and historically based Christian truth was quite
different from the pagan view of truth that was centred on the
214 Feed My Sheep
individual and his inner experience. Truth for the pagan was subjective
and emotional, an inner and mystical experience based on their own
perception of reality. This is essentially the concept of truth that
dominates our postmodern world. People do not believe in a
universal, readily accessible truth, but in a private, personal truth, true
for each individual. Postmodern truth is not found in the Bible but in
oneself. It is not an intelligent conviction but a vague feeling. It is not
based on revelation but on intuition. Such truth cannot be
authoritative for anyone else but is relative to every situation and
personalised for each individual. The contrast between Christian truth
and the contemporary view can be seen in the table below:
A COMPARISON OF
CHRISTIAN v POSTMODERN TRUTH
CHRISTIAN TRUTH PAGAN & POSTMODERN
Objective Subjective
Facts Perception
Historical Events Human Imagination
Biblical Revelation Mystical Experience
Public Truth Personal and Private Truth
Revealed Intuitive
The Voice of God The Voice of Self
Truth No “Truth”
External Internal
Intelligent Conviction Vague Feeling
Authoritative Relative
In contrast to the postmodern view of truth we maintain that God has

spoken truthfully to us in the Bible. In this book he has communicated
to us verbally and intelligibly. The Bible is true, inerrant, trustworthy,
and authoritative. It contains all we need to know for doctrine and life,
revealing what we need to believe and do. It reveals the Lord Jesus
Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life. This is the truth we can
communicate with confidence in our postmodern culture.
As we seek to do this we can take some lessons from the apostles
who lived in a culture and context very similar to our own. In their
pluralistic culture they boldly proclaimed the objective truth of the
Christian faith. Today’s preachers can confidently do the same. In
writing his gospel Luke emphasised the historical accuracy and truth of
his account.
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been
fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the
first were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word. Therefore, since I myself have
carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me
to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may
know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4).
Luke obviously believed that people could have certainty about the
truth and about events that had happened. The Apostle Paul began
from the same premise. When speaking to Jews in the synagogues he
“reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that
the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:2-3). When
preaching to the gentile Greeks he took a reasoned approach (Acts
17:17) and offered a coherent and well argued presentation of the
Christian faith. In preaching the gospel he tried to “persuade” men (2
Corinthians 5:11) because he was convinced that the gospel was the
truth coming from the God of truth and that all men ought to believe
it. Even though every man may be a liar we must “let God be true”
(Romans 3:4). This truth was powerful in the lives of God’s elect: It is
“the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes”
216 Feed My Sheep
(Romans 1:16). Jude was eager to write to first century Christians

about “the salvation we share” but on further reflection altered his
approach; “I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that
was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). Today we too must
“contend for the faith”, in both the church and the world, as the
Apostles did in their day. The Scriptures call us to proclaim, teach and
defend the truth of God about God.
In proclaiming the truth Christians are not saying they know all
there is to know about everything. Modernists optimistically believed
they could understand everything and have absolute certainty.
Postmodernists are more pessimistic, believing that all knowledge is
merely interpretation and that no one can know the truth. Christians
reject both of these positions. We believe that God has revealed his
truth to us. In order to make his truth known to us God must overcome
the effects of sin in our hearts and minds. He does this through the
powerful and sovereign work of his Spirit, regenerating our hearts and
enlightening our minds so that we can see the light of God’s truth,
understand it and believe it. God only reveals to us what he wants us
to know, keeping other things to himself in his own divine counsel. We
are only human and our ability to understand is limited (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Nevertheless, God has revealed his truth to us; “The secret things
belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us and our
children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law”
(Deuteronomy 29:29). Although God has not revealed all things to us,
what he has revealed is true. Our knowledge of God’s truth is finite, but
accurate. We may not have an exhaustive knowledge of the truth but
what we do know of God from the Scriptures is true. With confidence
we can say that Jesus was born, he died, he rose from the dead, he
ascended into heaven, he is coming again, and he is Lord. We do not
understand all these statements in all their infinite detail or in all their
great depth. Nor do we understand just how Jesus became a man, or
how he rose from the dead, or how he will come again. Nevertheless,
we can affirm that all of these statements are true. We can and do have
an objective knowledge of God’s truth revealed in the Scriptures.
The subjective aspect of truth
Proponents of postmodernism deny the possibility of objective truth in

favour of the subjective nature of truth. Christians affirm both – the
truth is both objective and subjective. I have already defended the
objectivity of the truth – God has revealed his truth to us and it can be
taught, known and understood. Yet Christian belief is not merely belief
‘out there’, it must also be internalised. It is not only objective, it must
also be personal. The Bible repeatedly emphasises this personal
element, especially with its emphasis on the heart. In Hebrew thought
the heart is regarded as the seat and centre of our being. Our thoughts,
motives and feelings arise from our heart. Therefore, we are to love the
Lord our God with all our heart (Deuteronomy 6:5); the law of God
must be on our hearts (Deuteronomy 6:6); this law must not be
allowed to slip from our hearts (4:9); instead it must be hidden in our
heart (Psalm 119:11). This emphasis on the heart shows that the
knowledge of God and his truth is not merely an intellectual head
knowledge; rather it must be believed and retained in the core of our
being.
The New Testament confirms this approach. At the end of his
gospel the Apostle John tells us that he had not written to give his
readers bare facts about the events that had happened but he had
written, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). In
the letters of the New Testament the Apostles reinforced this message.
To the Ephesians the apostle Paul wrote; “I pray that out of his glorious
riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your
inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith”
(Ephesians 3:16-17). He expressed a similar desire for himself in his
letter to the Philippians; “I want to know Christ and the power of his
resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming
like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection of
the dead” (Philippians 3:10-11). Again and again the Scriptures
emphasise that the truth about the Lord must be personally believed
218 Feed My Sheep
and experientially known.

This must also be the goal of preaching – that people may come to
know the truth about the Lord Jesus and live in the joy of this
knowledge. God wants us to be reconciled to him and to know him.
Carson comments; “Although this involves rational thought, more
than rational thought is involved. God is more interested in eliciting
from us trust, obedience, holiness, delight in his presence, humility of
heart, than merely formal understanding (though he certainly wants
that for us as well).”408 To know God is not merely to know information
about him, but rather to know him as a person. It is not enough to know
facts about God, we must also believe in him, trust him and obey him.
The Heidelberg Catechism, a mid-sixteenth century protestant
confession, puts this well in its definition of faith;
True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals
in his Word is true, it is also a deep rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy
Spirit through the gospel, that not only others, but I too, have had my sins
forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted
salvation.”409
It is correct, then, to emphasise the personal nature of knowing, not

because this is the current postmodern thinking, but because this is
consistent with the Bible.
How are we going to communicate this biblical perspective on
truth, with its objective and historical reality, as well as its personal and
subjective character? How will we do this in today’s climate where the
objective character of truth is denied? How are we to do this as
preachers of the gospel? What should be our response to trends in the
church that minimise truth and theology in favour of experience and
pragmatism? What is an appropriate style and stance for preaching in
our postmodern scene?
PREACHING CHRISTIAN TRUTH
In our present situation there is a new openness to spirituality.

Postmodern people are no longer locked into the scientific world view
and are more prepared to think about matters of faith. This provides us
with new opportunities to preach the gospel. Yet this change in
thinking will require a re-evaluation of how we present the gospel and
what we emphasise. In the past we could assume that people believed
that there was such a thing as truth and that it was important to
discover, know and believe the truth. Today people are not concerned
about the truth of the Christian faith; they are more concerned about
whether it works than whether it is true. Some suggest we should
respond to this new situation by abandoning questions of truth and
instead focus on the practical and utilitarian benefits of Christianity.
Certainly, it is useful to demonstrate the practical benefits of the truth
in our lives and in the church. Yet it would be wrong to neglect the
content and truth of the Bible. Christianity, as we have seen, is built on
the historic reality of the truth – the truth of what God has said and
done. “There is non-negotiable, biblical, intellectual content to be
proclaimed.”410 Preaching must convey the content of the Bible as the
truth. There is no substitute for the truth and content of the Word of
God.
Truth must be communicated because God saves people through
the proclamation of his Word as it is addressed, first of all, to their
minds. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome; “be
transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). His
repeated prayer for believers was that “the God of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and
revelation so that you may know him better” (Ephesians 1:17). Such
“wisdom and revelation” comes through our minds. A “knowledge of
his will” comes as people apply their minds to what God has revealed
(Colossians 1:9-10). In order for people to know the truth it must be
proclaimed by a preacher, heard by the ears, understood in the mind,
and believed in the heart (Romans 10:9-15). Carson comments; “a
220 Feed My Sheep
necessary component in conversion and in Christian discipleship is the

proper use of the mind.... God is worth thinking about. God’s
thoughts, in so far as he has disclosed them, can become our
thoughts.”411 Christians already have “the mind of Christ” (1
Corinthians 2:16); our aim is to grow in a greater understanding of
Christ and all his truth. This emphasis on the mind does not minimise
the importance of understanding the people of our generation, or the
necessity of preaching with conviction and compassion; or the vital
role of the Holy Spirit. Rather, I want to stress the foundational
character of the truth addressed to the mind. To neglect this is to
undercut the Christian faith and leave it without a foundation.
Although people do not believe in the truth, and even deny the
possibility of knowing the truth, we must still preach the truth of the
Scriptures because this is what will save men and women today.
When defending the truth our final authority must always be the
Bible. It is possible to put so much emphasis on communicating in a
relevant way that we end up neglecting the Scriptures. Liberalism has
made the mistake of beginning with the world and interpreting the
Bible in the light of contemporary ideas. Contemporary evangelicals,
seeking to be relevant, could repeat the same mistake – neglecting the
Word of God in favour of an emphasis on the world. I heard an
example of this in a central city church service aimed at youth. The
preacher spent most of the time exegeting the youth culture and
explaining the hurts afflicting young people, and making only passing
references to the Scriptures. Yet it is the Word of God that will change
people’s lives, not our incisive analysis of our contemporary situation.
A focus on the Bible will help us avoid diversions such as a
preoccupation with the end-times, the laughing of the Toronto
Blessing, and the spectacular but dubious practice of ‘slaying in the
spirit’. None of these have any biblical foundation and undermine the
credibility of the gospel in the eyes of an unbelieving world.412 There
is an offence in the message of the gospel but the offence must be a
biblical one, not one generated by our own ingenious programmes.
Moreover, the popular practices of the contemporary church will not
change people’s hearts and lives. Powerful appeals based on

emotionally charged stories will not change human behaviour.
Subjective experiences are no substitute for mentally digesting God’s
objective revelation. Entertaining services can never make up for lack
of thought. Only the Word of God, proclaimed and applied by the
preacher, impressed on people’s hearts by the Holy Spirit, can lead to
the salvation of sinners and the building up of believers. Our focus
must be on the Bible.
Our presentation of Biblical truth also needs authority. Peter Berger
notes that “strong eruptions of religious faith have always been marked
by the appearance of people with firm, unapologetic, often
uncompromising convictions.... Put simply: Ages of faith are not
marked by ‘dialogue’, but by proclamation.”413 He calls the Christian
community to adopt a stance of authority towards the modern world.
By this he does not mean an attitude of arrogance or of
“authoritarianism”. Rather he hoped the Protestant church would
recover from its demoralisation and failure of nerve and show the
authority of those “who are convinced that, in however imperfect a
measure, they have grasped some important truths about the human
condition.”414 Yet even this is understated. Preachers of the gospel can
speak to everyone in our society with the authority of those who
believe the Bible to be the Word of God, confident of the relevance and
importance of its message. Jesus amazed the crowds “because he
taught as one who had authority and not as their teachers of the law”
(Matthew 7:28-29). Today preachers ought to preach and teach with
authority because they are proclaiming the truth about Jesus, and not
as the theological liberals, interpretative deconstructionists, or tolerant
pluralists.
Our speaking about the truth ought to be vigorous. This is
something we are inclined to forget in a time of tolerance and the
general acceptance of the views of everyone. Hauerwas and Willimon
contend that the “suffocating niceness and domesticated metaphor of
much of what we hear from liberal pulpits today has so reinterpreted
and demythologised the truth of what the Apostle wrote so that it is
222 Feed My Sheep
rendered innocuous.”415 In trying to make the Christian faith

acceptable to the contemporary trends of thinking liberal theologians
and preachers have taken the heart out of the Christian faith. These
writers go on to say; “We suspect that the church loses its vitality when
its speech is cleaned up, pruned down, domesticated to ensure that our
relationship with God is predictable and nice.” They cite the example
of someone who proposed omitting the traditional Prayer for Enemies
from the new Anglican Book of Common Prayer because,
“Episcopalians are now so nice that they no longer make enemies.”416
The suggestion was made in jest, but like every joke there was an
element of truth behind it. Let such prayers remain in place because
the truth is worth fighting for, even dying for. We have noted that Jude
wrote to the first century churches urging them to “contend for the faith
that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). More than once
the Apostle Paul used battle imagery to describe the Christian life. He
encouraged Timothy to “Fight the good fight of the faith” (1 Tim 6:12)
and urged the Christians in Ephesus to “put on the full armour of
God”, so they would be able to stand their ground in the heat of the
battle against the attack of the “spiritual forces of evil”. (Ephs 6:10-18).
This Biblical language suggests vigour and zeal in our defence of the
Christian faith.
Preaching must also train believers to communicate the truth in a
new situation. If Christians are to be clear witnesses of the gospel and
effective citizens of Christ’s kingdom they must be well taught by their
pastors. Church leaders must be deliberate about teaching and
equipping all believers, but especially young people, to live as Resident
Aliens in a godless and hostile environment. Pastors must be intent on
proclaiming the uniqueness of the Christian faith and the exclusive
claims of Jesus on the lives of His disciples. The devaluation of truth
and the context of pluralism makes it more difficult to transmit the
Christian faith and character to the next generation. Through the
media children and young people in Christian homes are bombarded
with the ideas and values of other peoples, and through school and
society they are confronted with a huge range of beliefs and lifestyles.
This context raises questions for them about the truth and reality of the
Christian faith. All the more reason then, for the clear and faithful
proclamation of God’s Word Sunday by Sunday. If the world denies
the truth of the Bible then the church must counter this by boldly
affirming what it believes about the Scriptures. To do otherwise is to
capitulate to the forces of the enemy. As pastors we need to preach the
Scriptures and apply them to what is going on in the lives of those
listening to us. If Christians are to live and speak as disciples of Christ
in their situation they must have a good knowledge of the Bible and the
ability to defend it apologetically. Pastors can help their people to
understand the culture they are living in and witnessing to. Equipping
Christians for witness involves teaching them the truth about God,
Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the great plan of a triune God for the
salvation of a lost and fallen world. Much of this can be communicated
through preaching, supplemented by biblical education and
discipleship training.
PREACHING THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE
Postmodernists no longer believe in a metanarrative; they have lost

any hope for an overall explanation of the world that can give meaning
to their lives. Yet they are longing for a purpose to existence. They may
deny the reality of an overall narrative but they cannot suppress the
yearning for it. Christian preachers can take advantage of this by telling
the Biblical narrative of God’s dealings with his covenant people.
Preaching the history of God’s dealing with his people is not different
from, or opposed to, preaching biblical truth but is rather another way
of doing this, another angle on the truth. The Bible explains this world
and our place in it. As pastors tell of what God has done in the lives of
others people will see that this God is also at work in their situation –
he is active today as he was then. The record of God’s acts in history
gives meaning to our lives by pointing out our place in God’s plan.
Such preaching will ground Christians in the Scriptures and help
224 Feed My Sheep
correct an appalling ignorance of the Bible.

Preaching like this will also be an effective means of proclaiming the
gospel to non-Christians. Unbelievers today have little or no
knowledge of the Bible. They have no understanding of who Jesus is
or why he came. Therefore the record of the person and work of Christ
must be set in the larger framework of the Bible. This is how Paul
preached to the gentile Greeks in Athens (Acts 17). He first of all spoke
about God as the great Creator and of God’s purpose for us – that we
might seek him so that we might find him. Then he spoke about human
ignorance and sin and of the necessity of repentance. Only after he had
laid out this background did he introduce the person of Christ and his
resurrection. In this way he covered the central theme of the Bible – the
creation of the world, the fall into sin, and God’s redemption of his
people. All the stories of the Bible must be read in the light of this larger
context, including the account of what God did in the lives of
individual people.
The Bible is full of examples of what God has done in people’s lives.
All of these are instructive for us – “For everything that was written in
the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the
encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Romans
15:4). “These things happened to them as examples and were written
down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come”
(1 Corinthians 10:11). As we read these examples we must bear in
mind that they are not primarily written about these people, but they
are the record of what God was doing in their lives. God is the hero of
the Bible and of every story in it. As we read about how God was at
work in the lives of others we are able to see how he is at work in our
lives. These examples shed light on the events and circumstances of
our lives and help us find answers to our problems.417 Statements and
injunctions by themselves are not sufficient in preaching. To simply
say, “God forgives sinners”, or, “Love your neighbour” is not as
effective as when the same truth is illustrated and applied to those who
are listening. Moses did this in Deuteronomy when he reminded the
people of Israel of the laws God had given them, urging them to
faithfulness, and explaining the consequences of obedience or

disobedience. Jesus did this in his ministry when he demonstrated his
power in miracles and illustrated the truth in parables. To the hard and
suspicious pharisees he proved that he had the power to forgive sins by
raising a paralytic from his bed (Luke 5:17-26), and to the teacher of
the law he explained the meaning of love for one’s neighbour with the
parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). In this way Jesus
often used parables to reinforce and illustrate the point he wanted to
make. Thus the Bible is full of examples, both real-life stories and also
parables, that are used to explain the truth.
When preaching the parables we need to be sure that we are
preaching the truth Jesus intended to convey and not just their story
line. Some advocate the preaching of parables in contrast to doctrinal
preaching because they perceive the latter to be cold or rationalistic.
Preaching the parables, they believe, will gain the attention of the
listener, stimulate the imagination, and provoke reflection. In response
we should note, firstly, that the parables of Jesus were told both to
reveal and to conceal the truth – to reveal the truth to those who
believed and to conceal it from those who did not (See Mark 4:10-12,
Luke 8:9-10). Secondly, to understand properly many of Jesus’
parables requires a good understanding of the history of the Old
Testament and a knowledge of the customs and cultures of first century
Palestine. Preaching the parables just because they are stories does not
guarantee a ready form of communication to postmodern people.
Thirdly, the parables could easily be misunderstood by people who are
atheistic, pantheistic or ignorant of the Bible. Unless our preaching is
anchored in “objective, propositional, confessional truth... the entire
heritage of biblical Christianity will be sold for a mess of subjectivist
pottage.”418 By all means, let’s preach the parables, the narrative parts
of the Bible, and the entire story of what God is doing in history, but
let’s preach this as the historical, factual and genuine truth God has
made known to us. Furthermore, let’s preach this truth in all its
substance, depth and theological weight.
226 Feed My Sheep
PREACHING AND THEOLOGY
In the protestant churches of New Zealand there is a tendency to

emphasise experience rather than doctrine, tongues rather than
teaching, signs and wonders rather than systematic theology,
technique rather than truth. Church advertisements in the Saturday
papers indicate a whole range of choices for the contemporary
Christian. Many of these churches promote themselves as fulfilling
people’s needs rather than as preaching the truth. There is a tendency
to focus on ourselves rather than on God, with the result that many
regular churchgoers are appallingly ignorant of basic doctrines of the
Bible. Instead they are often distracted by matters secondary to central
teachings of the Christian faith.
If the truth of God is central to Christian belief, as I have claimed,
then we must make the truth central in preaching. If theology is the
study of God then preachers of the Word must be theologians.
Preachers, of all people, ought to be diligent students of the Scriptures.
Ministers ought to have a sound and solid grasp of Christian truth –
both in biblical and systematic theology. We need a good grasp of the
overall content of the Scriptures and the progressive development of
God’s revelation, as well as a comprehensive and systematic
knowledge of the main teachings of the Bible. This knowledge ought to
undergird our preaching and teaching. It ought to be the backbone of
all we have to say. Not that all this learning has to be displayed in our
sermons – a sermon is not a lecture in theology. Nor should a preacher
draw attention to himself and his knowledge; his task is rather to point
people to a knowledge of God through Christ. To give people a
knowledge of God requires that we have a well developed theological
understanding.
The means that New Zealand preachers need to be well trained in
the Bible and theology. After his appointment as principal of Carey
Baptist College Paul Windsor conducted a “consult” in an attempt to
gather information to help set a direction and curriculum for the Baptist
college. He summarised the discussions as “a ringing endorsement for
the retaining of a biblical/ theological/ historical core in the

curriculum.”419 He noted that increasingly people do not have this as
the foundation and framework for their Christian thinking and so there
was a need for close and careful biblical studies to give Christians “an
integral grasp of the whole of Scripture as a guide for the whole of
life.”420 Responses from the consults emphasised the need for a
balanced, thorough and systematic theology that is orthodox and
dynamic, as well as a study of the history of the church. He noted that
there was a need to “establish with staff, students, and the
denomination that this College is returning to a commitment to the
Bible as the authoritative Word of God and all theology and
curriculum begins at this ground level.”421 The implementation of such
a curriculum in the Bible colleges and seminaries of New Zealand, in
the context of a protestant understanding of the Scriptures, would help
turn the church back to a biblical understanding and practise of the
truth.
Formal theological training is only the beginning of what ought to be
a lifelong process of study and learning. College or seminary training only
provides us with the tools we need to begin a study of the Word of God.
Regular preaching and teaching forces us to keep reading, studying and
growing in our knowledge of the Lord and his truth so that we can pass
this on to the people of God and those who are searching for the truth.
Ministers of the Word will also find it helpful to attend conferences or
seminars that will assist them in their continuing education. A quick
glance at Challenge Weekly or other Christian magazines illustrates the
huge number of such opportunities available to church members and
leaders. Unfortunately, many of these are weak on content and theology.
In-service training for minsters must focus more on the Bible, truth and
doctrine rather than following the current trends of leadership, vision
casting and management. If members of the church are going to grow in
their understanding of the Bible and Christian truth then ministers must
be leading the way by their example. A sound knowledge of the Bible and
theology will also help believers be more effective evangelists in our
society.
228 Feed My Sheep
PREACHING AND EVANGELISM
Preaching should also encourage and equip Christians to live out and
speak about the truth of their faith wherever the Lord has placed them.
We are clearly in a mission situation in New Zealand today. Christians
are a small proportion of the total population – less than 10%. The
culture and values have almost lost the vestiges of a Christian memory.
Christianity enjoys no privileged status and has no honoured place.
Pluralism challenges even our right to evangelise. Opponents of
Christianity assert that even the claim to know and declare the truth is
arrogant and ridiculous. Carson, describing the North American
situation, writes; “We face new levels of hostility, new levels of biblical
illiteracy, new forms of resistance, even when this generation speaks
freely and somewhat wantonly of ‘spirituality’.”422 Evangelistic
strategies used in the past no longer have the same appeal or
effectiveness. Most people are suspicious of those who go door-to-
door, partly because of the frequent use the cults make of this, but also
because of the rising crime and violence of our nation and an
awareness of ‘stranger danger’. A sunday school ministry is not the
drawcard that it used to be. With all the talk of child-abuse many
parents are hesitant to put their children into the care of others they do
not know well. Revival meetings no longer have the cultural support
they enjoyed in the hey-day of the Billy Graham crusades, and now
those who do attend are mostly believers.423
Today we find ourselves in the same situation as that of the early
church, because they too were in a minority position in a pluralistic
empire. When they were forcibly dispersed by persecution, “Those
who had been scattered preached the Word wherever they went” (Acts
8:4). It is worth noting that the apostles remained in Jerusalem while
the ‘lay’ people went out – the members of the church were the ones
witnessing. The word translated as “preached” literally means “to
bring or announce good news”. It can be used to describe the formal
preaching of this good news, but it often refers to individual believers
‘passing on’ good news to those they meet. These early Christians
communicated their faith by “informal chattering to friends and

chance acquaintances, in homes and wine shops, on walks, and
around the market stalls. They went everywhere gossipping the gospel;
they did it naturally, enthusiastically and with the conviction of those
who are not paid to say that sort of thing.”424 This is what we need to
encourage among Christians today. All believers must see that they
have a task of being witnesses for the Lord through their good deeds
and their God-honouring speech. A holy life and a personal testimony
about Jesus are powerful evangelistic tools. To share the gospel in this
way believers must deliberately build contact with non-believers, being
wise in their relationships, and making the most of every opportunity
(Colossians 4:5). Christians must fulfil this role at school, polytech and
university, as well as in their communities and places of work.
As preachers we ought regularly to encourage the members of our
church to bring unbelievers to hear the preaching of the Word.
Individual Christians can and should talk about their faith to those they
meet, but they should also be urged to invite unbelievers to listen to the
preaching of the Bible as this is one of the primary means God uses to
bring people to faith in Christ. A commendable feature of churches
who have adopted the ‘seeker service’ approach is their conviction
that unbelievers will come to hear the preaching of the gospel and that
the Lord will use this in the conversion of those who do not believe.
Would that preachers in all the churches in this country really believed
this and preached for the conversion of the lost. Charles Haddon
Spurgeon, the famous Baptist preacher of the nineteenth century,
recalls this conversation with a preacher named Mr. Medhurst
regarding evangelistic preaching;
One day, with a very sad countenance, he said to me, “I have been preaching
for three months, and I don’t know of a single soul having been converted.”
Meaning to catch him by guile, and at the same time to teach him a lesson he
would never forget, I asked, “Do you expect the Lord to save souls every time
you open your mouth?” “Oh, no, sir!” he replied. “Then,” I said, “that is just the
reason why you have not had conversions: ‘According to your faith be it unto
you.’”425
230 Feed My Sheep
Believers should be encouraged to pray for the salvation of

unbelievers. They should also be urged to pray for their minister, that
he may be able to preach the Scriptures clearly, faithfully presenting
the truth, and that God’s Word may accomplish the purpose for which
it was sent.
In response to the loss of truth in our postmodern society Christians
affirm that there is Truth and that it can be found in the Lord Jesus
Christ and in the Word of God. God has spoken to us authoritatively
and clearly in the Bible giving us a true, although not exhaustive,
understanding of his creation and of reality. This truth is historical and
objective, but to be a living faith in Christ it must also be personally
experienced and believed in our hearts. If ministers of the gospel are to
be effective preachers they must have a thorough grasp of Christian
truth and theology and must seek to pass this on to believers and
unbelievers alike. As believers hear the truth Sunday by Sunday they
will be more established in their faith and better equipped to be
ambassadors for the Lord and citizens of his kingdom. They will also be
encouraged to invite unbelievers to hear the truth of the gospel in the
preaching of the Word.
Part of the reason for the loss of truth in our society is that we live
in a pluralistic environment. Pluralism and the loss of truth are
intimately related matters. The huge variety of races and ideas tends to
devalue the truth of the Christian faith, and the depreciation of the
value of truth encourages further pluralism. How are we to preach in
this situation?
231
Chapter 3
PREACH THE
UNIQUENESS OF
JESUS AS LORD
In the discussion of pluralism I distinguished between the presence of

pluralism in our western world and its promotion. The former is simply
part of our world situation at the beginning of a new millennium and
is neither good nor bad. We could even argue that diversity adds
variety, interest and colour to our society, and that it gives the church
an opportunity to demonstrate how different races and cultures can be
brought together in the community of the Lord’s people. My objection
was not against this form of pluralism but rather against the promotion
of pluralism as an ideology. Christians cannot accept that all religions
are equally valid or that all ‘truths’ are acceptable. On the contrary, the
Scriptures teach us that there is only one true religion and that there is
only one truth.
AN EXCLUSIVE MESSAGE IN A PLURALIST WORLD
Jesus made an exclusive claim for the truth when he said; “I am the
way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through
me” (John 14:6). This claim of the Lord Jesus cuts across the grain in
our pluralistic world. Yet Jesus frequently reaffirmed this statement.
After the beautiful invitation of John 3:16 Jesus went on to say about
himself; “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever
does not believe stands condemned already because he has not
believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18). John
records the final invitation of the Lord in his public ministry; “I have
come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me
should stay in darkness” (John 12:46). But immediately after this John
232 Feed My Sheep
records the warning Jesus gave; “There is a judge for the one who
rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke
will condemn him at the last day” (John 12:46, 48). The eternal
salvation of every individual in the world is dependant on their
relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ. The cross of Christ is not “a
confusing roundabout sign pointing in every direction” but is “still the
place where all men are meant to kneel.”426 Every individual is called
to receive Jesus as Lord. To believe in Jesus is the only way to be
saved.
This is the consistent teaching of the Bible. The Apostle Peter
confirmed this when he spoke about the Lord Jesus to the Jewish
Sanhedrin; “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other
name, under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts
4:12). When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas; “Sirs, what
must I do to be saved?” they directed him to Jesus – “Believe in the
Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household” (Acts
16:30-31). The Apostle Paul pointed his readers to Jesus when he
wrote; “...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in
your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved”
(Romans 10:10). He went on to describe how people could only
believe if they heard the message, and they could only hear the
message if someone preached to them (Romans 10:14-15). In other
words, the only way to be saved is to hear the message about Jesus and
believe in him. The writer to the Hebrews also pointed out the supreme
and central position of the Lord Jesus when he wrote; “In the past God
spoke to our forefathers at many times and in various ways, but in
these last days he has spoken to us in his Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2). Here
again Jesus is not offered as one option among many, but as the final
revelation of God the Father to whom we must listen, in whom we
must trust, through whom we are given eternal life. One day we must
give an account to him.
Carson points out that this exclusivism is narrower than the
inclusivism found among many theologians who teach that although
people are saved on account of the person and work of Christ,
Preach the Uniqueness of Jesus as Lord 233
“conscious faith in Jesus Christ is not absolutely necessary”.427 Our

approach is also opposed to the pluralist view “that all religions have
the same moral and spiritual value, and offer the same potential for
achieving salvation, however ‘salvation’ be construed.”428 Rather than
accommodating ourselves or our views to the smorgasbord around us
we must preach the biblical message that salvation is to be found
through faith in Jesus alone.
Some may object that the first century Christians made exclusive
statements because they were in a very different cultural and historical
situation. However, their position in their society was actually very
similar to our own. Many scholars point out that never before in the
history of Christendom has our situation so closely parallelled that of
the first century A.D.429 That Ancient Greek and Roman world was
also pluralistic and pagan. As the Apostle Paul wandered the streets of
Athens “he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols”
(Acts 17:16). The religious world of Athens, and indeed the entire
Mediterranean rim, was home to hundreds of sects. Greek society had
many gods, a set of religions, and a number of philosophies. Roman
religions were also polytheistic as well as having the official Roman
religion that deified the Caesars. “Pluralism was the stuff of everyday
life in biblical times.”430 The various religions at that time made few
exclusive claims. Indeed, most people believed that all the religions
had some merit in them. One “intransigent exception” was the Jews,431
who did make an exclusive claim to truth and believed that their God
was the supreme Creator of the heavens and the earth who alone
deserved to receive worship.
In this pluralistic setting the early Christians stood apart from other
religions. They believed in “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God
and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians
4:5-6). They refused to go along with the idolatry and polytheism of
their world. They did not accept that all religions lead to God, nor did
they accommodate themselves to the Roman emperor cult, nor to any
of the other religions or philosophies of the day. Instead, they
unashamedly proclaimed Jesus as Lord and insisted that he was
234 Feed My Sheep
supreme. Against the mixed heresy facing the Christians in Colosse the
Apostle Paul asserted the sufficiency of Christ to make them complete
(Colossians 2:9-10). He rejected the “fine-sounding arguments” of the
false teachers and scorned “their self-imposed worship, their false
humility and their harsh treatment of the body” (Colossians 2:4, 23).
All the believers needed for salvation was to be found in the Lord Jesus
Christ. Since we live in a similar pluralistic setting we should not
hesitate to proclaim the uniqueness of the Lord and lay out the
distinctive claim of the Christian faith.
A BETTER FORM OF TOLERANCE
This raises a further issue: Granted the claims of Christ in our

postmodern society how should we see our place in this setting and
how will we regard other religions and ideas? Of course, we must
acknowledge that religious pluralism is a reality in our society.
Recognising this situation, however, is different from acquiescing to it.
We do not celebrate such religious diversity as the postmodernists do.
Rather than see people worship the worthless idols of our age our
desire is to see all men acknowledge Jesus as Lord. We cannot impose
that on them, nor can we force people to believe. What we can do is to
point out the falsehood of other religions and the errors of
postmodernism, such as its promotion of pluralism and selfism. We
can also promote an environment that allows for a free and open
discussion and critique of the ideas prevailing in the culture. In the
absence of a unifying shared public philosophy those holding widely
varying views must find a way to live at peace with each other. Os
Guinness proposes that Christians aim for a religious freedom that
allows all religions to practise and does not instantly seek the
advantage of our religion. This can be done by promoting three R’s:
“the right to believe and practice any religion or none; the
responsibility to guard this right for everyone, not least those with
whom we most disagree; and respect meted to everyone, especially
those with whom we disagree.”432

What Guinness is arguing for is a form of tolerance, but not the
tolerance of the postmodern mentality. The tolerance of the latter, we
noted, is in fact an intolerance of any view that makes an exclusive
claim to truth. In the current thinking people are not permitted to make
judgements about the truth or morality of any other view – to do so is
to be charged with bigotry. Wells describes this as “a kind of
friendliness within which all absolutes perish either for lack of interest
or because of the demands of the social etiquette.”433 This is not
Christian tolerance. Instead, we want to allow for, and even promote,
a vigorous exchange of ideas so that the truth may be clarified and
believed. We must be tolerant of other people and respect the views
they hold, but we must be permitted to debate those ideas, to question
their position, and to discuss the relative merits of what they believe.
Our attitude to others may be easily misunderstood because of
differing perspectives on toleration.434 To avoid this misunderstanding
we must deliberately explain that we are allowing others the right to
disagree with us, and that we are not forcing anyone to believe what we
believe, while, at the same time, seeking to persuade them of the truth
we hold to.
We do this because the great issues of eternity are at stake. All
people in this world are either on the broad road that leads to
destruction or on the narrow path that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14).
Our genuine concern as Christians is to see more and more people
enter through the narrow gate and so begin the journey to the
heavenly city. Our burning passion as preachers is to be “Christ’s
ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We
implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians
5:20). Our constant prayer is; “Your kingdom come, your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). While we must allow
people the liberty of holding their own view, our preaching and prayers
are directed towards seeing people rescued from the dominion of
darkness and brought into the kingdom of the Son God loves, “in
whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins” (Col. 1:13).
236 Feed My Sheep
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST
Part of the problem in preaching this gospel is that the church itself has
lost conviction and clarity on the uniqueness of Christianity and has
been effected by the pluralism of our day. Earlier I gave an extreme
example of this in the World Council of Churches. However, the broad
ecumenical approach evident in this organisation runs counter to the
exclusive claims Jesus made for himself (John 14:6). While there may
be elements of truth in other religions The Truth is found in Christ
alone and in the Bible alone. Only through faith in this Lord Jesus
Christ can a person be saved.
The influence of pluralism may also be seen in a growing
ecumenism among protestant evangelical churches. Denominational
distinctives are giving way. The current trend is towards combined
worship services among local churches and towards co-operation in
ecumenical activities, such as the March For Jesus, despite the
differences of theology and doctrine there may be. An organisation
such as Promise Keepers has modified its statement of faith to include
the Roman Catholic view of justification by faith. If churches are only
upholding their traditions and familiar ways of doing things there may
be some value in such a trend. But I suspect that the weakening of
denominational commitment also reflects less concern for the truth, a
decline in theological understanding, and an attitude that minimises
what one believes. If denominations continue to give away the
distinctives of their beliefs this will lead to a further watering down of
their doctrinal position. This does not mean that the doctrinal position
of every denomination is right – if we say this we are back to the
postmodern perspective. If churches hold differing perspective they
cannot all be true. What we ought to encourage is a healthy discussion
about the views we hold on various issues and doctrines. This could
take place in minister’s associations. These meetings provide good
opportunities for Christian fellowship. At times, however, there is a lack
of interest in discussing points of difference; these tend to get swept
under the carpet in favour of an emphasis on unity and co-operation.
Certainly, all true believers are united in Christ. But we ought to strive
for the highest degree of unity possible through careful theological and
biblical discussion.
Attitudes among the clergy are bound to influence the laity. If
theological precision is of little concern to pastors it will be of little
concern to other believers. This is part of the reason so many
Christians are content to wander around the churches and are
prepared to listen to and accept whatever is said or done. The Bible,
however, puts a premium on truth – so too should all believers. The
adherence of the church to truth ought to be our primary concern, of
greater concern than the architecture of the building, the quality of the
choir or the flair of the minister. An old confession of the church
summarises the marks of the true church by insisting that all things be
“managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary
thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of
the Church.”435 The primary consideration for believers looking for a
church to attend and join as a member ought to be the faithfulness of
the church to the Word of God in its teaching and practice. If the
church is led and taught by faithful pastors and elders then other
important matters such as genuine fellowship and a concern for
evangelism will flow out of that.
This ecumenical attitude and blurring of distinctives may also be
part of the reason for the degree of ‘church hopping’ we see at present,
where believers flit from one church to another like restless wanderers.
Yet, if believers are going to enjoy upbuilding fellowship with other
believers, and if they are going to grow through the preaching and
teaching of the Word, then they need to commit themselves to one
congregation. Gordon Miller, Church Relations Manager for World
Vision New Zealand, notes that these wanderers need to become
committed to a local church and be part of the body of Christ in a
certain place. They must be loved and led to a more solid commitment
to the church. Miller urges pastors to give themselves to preaching as
they have never done before – “work hard at bringing warm, relevant
and inspiring messages that bring the great truths of the Bible alive.
238 Feed My Sheep
Your wanderers will wander less when their hearts burn within them as
you speak (Luke 24:32).”436 If they settle down into a church and
attend regularly then they will get to know a group of believers, will be
accountable to a body of elders, and will benefit from a consistent
pulpit ministry. Alternatively, if they float around from one place of
worship to another they will not enjoy any of these benefits, nor will
they be able to contribute effectively to the lives of other Christians.
This leads us to consider the importance of teaching and preaching the
doctrine of the church.
Preach the Biblical Doctrine of the Church 239
Chapter 4
PREACH THE
BIBLICAL DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH
THE CHURCH AS A COMMUNITY
Earlier I drew attention to the individualism that prevails in our society.

This arose from the ideas of the Enlightenment and was reinforced by
the move to big cities and by the effect of television. In reaction, there
has been a move towards tribalism as people begin to find their identity
in small groups, drawn together by a common cause, interest or even
age-group. As Christians we have an adequate response to this present
crisis and confusion because we believe in the church.
The church of the Lord Jesus provides a home for the individual
within the wider community of the people of God. Each person can
find a place and has an important role to fulfil, using their own gifts and
abilities. The Apostle Paul spells this out when he compares the church
to a body (Romans 12:1-16 and 1 Corinthians 12). Such a view of the
church avoids both the extremes of individualism and of tribalism. The
church is not a loose collection of isolated and independent
individuals, nor is it a forced collective of people all conforming to the
same mould. Rather, it is a community of believers, who all have
varied gifts and abilities, each of whom has something to contribute,
and who share a common identity and bond in Christ, and a unity in
God the Father (Ephesians 4:3-8).
The New Testament both prescribes and describes a structure and
order for the government of the body of Christ. The church is not to be
led by a ‘one man band’ but rather by a plurality of elders (Titus 1:5)
who are assisted in their task by deacons. These deacons are to take
care of the work of administration and the poor, leaving the elders free
for the “ministry of the word and of prayer” (Acts 6:1-4). Churches
240 Feed My Sheep
today would do well to study these principles of church government

and seek to implement a biblical pattern.
The Biblical descriptions of the church as a body (1 Corinthians
12), a household (1 Timothy 3:15), a building (Ephesians 2:19-22)
and a bride (Ephesians 5:25-27) provide preachers with many rich
avenues to explore with their congregations. As we develop the New
Testament teaching about the church we can show how it rejects both
the rampant individualism and the splintering tribalism of our culture.
A COVENANT COMMUNITY
Part of the problem in our society is the increasing segmentation of

people into separate and distinct groups who have little or nothing to
do with each other. Here again the church can model a better society
that demonstrates genuine unity and harmony. Developing this in the
church will require a good understanding of the covenant God has
established with his people. This biblical idea has deep roots in the Old
Testament. A covenant is a relationship between two parties who are
bound together by solemn oaths and promises. Both parties have
various responsibilities and obligations to each other. God established
covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses and the people of Israel,
Phineas, and with David. It is the covenant with Abraham that receives
the most attention in the Scriptures. In it God established a relationship
with Abraham; “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting
covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the
generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants
after you for the generations to come” (Genesis 17:7). The Lord
continued his covenant with his people, often repeating its central
promise – “I will be your God and you will be my people”. This
covenant arrangement continued into the New Testament; there the
Apostle Paul described New Testament believers as the children of
Abraham and heirs of the promise (Romans 4:16-17, Galatians 3:7-9,
26-29). Today we are part of God’s covenant people who have been
drawn into a relationship with him, not just as individuals, but as part
of a larger community. In the Old Testament this community was the
people of Israel; in the New Testament it is the church. We are part of
the larger picture of what God has been doing in the world and through
history. This concept of the covenant is worth emphasising by
preachers in a postmodern generation that has lost its identity and its
roots. Here, surely, is a good antidote to the restlessness,
fragmentation and rootlessness of people today.
A MODEL COMMUNITY
Churches in New Zealand ought to provide examples of healthy and

positive relationships among individuals. This ideal will not be realised
in all churches at all times because Christians too are selfish people
whose relationships are disrupted by their sinful nature. Yet a
harmonious church community is the ideal and is worth striving for.
Sometimes churches seek to engineer unity through such means as
detailed sharing of their lives, holding hands, hugging your neighbour
or telling the person next to you in worship that you love them. Rather
than pursuing these artificial and manipulative techniques preachers
would do well to preach and teach the truth about Christian
relationships. Believers in the churches of the first century were called
to live together in peace and harmony – so are Christians today. We
are to practice the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) and are to live in
humility, gentleness, patience and love towards each other (Ephesians
4:1-3). We should not look to our own interests but to the interests of
others, having the same attitude as Christ Jesus (Philippians 2:1-5).
Unity and peace in the church will come about as believers apply these
principles to their hearts and lives with the help of the Holy Spirit, and
as we provide small group settings where people are able to share their
lives in a natural and open manner.
242 Feed My Sheep
A LOVING COMMUNITY
It is not enough for us to preach the truth of the Bible – we must

demonstrate it in practice. To believe in Jesus is to know him as a
person and to follow him through life. Yet, it also involves belonging to
his body, the church, and showing love for others. Jesus told his
disciples that the distinguishing mark of his followers was to be their
love for each other: “All men will know that you are my disciples if you
love one another” (John 13:35). This was the concern of the Apostle
James in his letter. What good is it to say we have faith if we don’t show
it in our deeds. Love must be especially evident in the church
community, seen in a consideration and care for orphans, for widows,
and for the poor (James 1:19-2:7). We need to build the church as a
strong community where people look after each other; where children
are loved, appreciated, and cared for; where the poor learn how to
manage their finances; where unemployed learn skills and find
encouragement; where young people can find hope for the future and
creative outlets for their energy. Church communities like this will be a
powerful testimony to the truth of the gospel. The truth of what we
believe must be seen in our Christ-like lives, in the evidence of
Christian character, and in our love for God and for one another. Our
lives should reinforce and illustrate what we believe to be true. The
loneliness of many individuals and the insulated subcultures of our
society cause many people to long for genuine expressions of love and
acceptance. We have an opportunity to show this to them.
A COMMUNITY OF TRUTH
It is also through the church, both past and present, that we come to a
full appreciation and understanding of the truth of God. We need to
remember that the church did not begin with us. Rather it began when
the Lord called Abram to be the father of a great nation and it has
continued in history, in two main phases, for 4000 years. For the first
2000 years God continued to reveal his truth and will to his people.
Much of this was recorded in the Scriptures. For the last 2000 years the
risen Christ has given his church his Spirit so that he might illumine
these Scriptures, enabling us to understand them and helping us to live
by them. In this understanding we stand on the shoulders of those who
have gone before us: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, The Westminster
Assembly, Jonathan Edwards. We don’t have to start from scratch as
though nothing has been said or thought; instead we have the benefit
of all that has been studied and written down by the church in past
ages. Not only do we benefit from the church in the past, but also from
the church in the present. It is “together with all the saints” that we
grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ
(Ephesians 3:18). Other believers assist us in our comprehension of
God’s Word and enrich our grasp of the love God has shown to us.
They help us apply this Word to our own situation, correcting our blind
spots and enlarging our understanding. The church is a community of
truth.
A SELF-SACRIFICING COMMUNITY
In response to the current pre-occupation with self-esteem we need to

emphasise that the individual not only has a relationship with others
but also with God, who has created us in his image. The Enlightenment
focussed solely on the human person and said that each person was
accountable only to himself, whereas the Protestant Reformation
emphasised that each individual was personally accountable to God
for their decisions and actions. The Lord has an interest in every
individual and is patient, “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone
to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Each individual is also
responsible to the Lord because God is the Creator and he calls all of
us to know him, love him and serve him. Consequently, our focus in
life ought to be on God and not on ourselves. This goes against our
natural inclination, because by nature we are self-centred. The present
244 Feed My Sheep
concentration on self encourages this in-built sinful tendency.

Earlier we discussed victimisation as one extreme example of this
pre-occupation with self. Certainly there are victims in our own nation
and in the world – victims of the brutality, greed and the vice of others.
We cannot dismiss all those crying for help as “cry-babies”. Yet we
must be discerning, and where we find people adopting a ‘victim’
mentality we need to urge them to take responsibility for their own
lives, their own sin and their own failures. At the same time they can
look in hope to the Lord Jesus who came to “bind up the broken-
hearted” and “to comfort all who mourn” (Isaiah 61:1-3, Luke 4:16-
19).
This emphasis on self is in direct conflict with the teaching of the
Lord who did not promote a philosophy of self-esteem but of self-
denial. Rather than urging sinful selfish people to love themselves he
commanded them to love their neighbour. The call of the gospel is to
“deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me” (Mark 10:34).
Writing to the Philippians the apostle Paul gave the same message;
“...in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you
should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of
others” (Philippians 2:3-4). Rather than pandering to the selfishness of
the human heart preachers of the gospel need to preach the biblical
truths of self-sacrifice, not self-esteem; self-denial, not self-fulfilment;
service to our neighbour, not the satisfaction of my needs; a focus on
God, not on man; the glory of God, not the gratification of my
pleasure. We need to remind people that what God thinks of us is all
important, not what we think of ourselves. A proper view of ourselves
is gained through a proper knowledge of God and of ourselves in
relation to God, through Christ. In contrast to the prevailing trends our
teaching must be more theocentric and less anthropocentric; we must
put more emphasis on faithfulness and less on fulfilment; we must seek
the glory of God first of all, and not our own.
A UNIFYING COMMUNITY
Another issue we must address is the tendency to divide the church up

into specific sectors according to age, race or inclination. It is true that
each period of history has its own character and challenge. In the
gospels Jesus often referred to “this generation” (Luke 7:31). He was
referring to those who were alive on the earth at that time and to their
responsibility before the Lord. Each generation must be aware of its
calling to hear the Word of the Lord and to respond to it. Each period
of history is significant and each individual and group must fulfil their
responsibility at that time. Our task as preachers is to proclaim the
eternal truth of God’s Word to this generation so that they might live in
obedience to the Lord “understanding the present time” (Romans
13:11).
It is also true that patterns of immigration have placed certain racial
groups in a culture very different from the one they are familiar with.
New Zealand today has significant numbers of Christians from Samoa,
Taiwan and Korea. These believers must meet together in their own
congregations because they can only worship in their own language.
Yet, when we examine the New Testament’s description of the
early church and its doctrine of the church we see a striking emphasis
on the power of the gospel to bring people together. In the body of
Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Through the cross
of Christ racial and cultural distinctions lose their power to divide and
separate. By means of his death Jesus removed “the barrier, the
dividing wall of hostility” that separated Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians
2:14). “His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the
two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them
to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility” (vs
15-16). People who were traditionally bitter enemies found themselves
brought together in the New Testament church. Here is a great
testimony to the power of the gospel to break down the barriers that
separate different groups. All true believers are united with each other
246 Feed My Sheep
through their union with the Lord Jesus Christ evident in their baptism.
It seems to me that the current trend to segmentation in the church
is breaking up what ought to be together. The church is a covenant
community of all believers, who, rather than being separated into a
‘children’s church’, ‘youth’ service, ‘traditional’ worship, or a
‘contemporary’ service, ought to be able to worship together as the
people of the Lord. There is, to be sure, a place for children to get
together and be taught at their level (in sunday school for instance),
and for young people to have fun and fellowship together in youth
clubs. But the worship of the Lord’s people provides a setting for the
entire church to gather for the corporate worship of the Lord, young
and old, male and female, Kiwi and Korean, Maori and Pakeha. In this
fragmented society of ours we need to show that the church is the
family of God. Here we have a golden opportunity to demonstrate the
power of God’s Spirit to bring people together in the fellowship of the
church.
As the church we must beware of buying into the thinking of the
age, whether that be individualism or tribalism. Preachers of the Bible
have a particular responsibility to understand and expose the
erroneous ideas of our culture and to preach the Biblical truth of the
church, applying this to the concerns of our time.
Preach the Absolutes of God’s Law 247
Chapter 5
PREACH THE ABSOLUTES
OF GOD’S LAW
A RESPONSE TO RELATIVISM
Those who hold to a position of relativism believe that there is no

objective criterion of truth and no absolute standard for determining
right from wrong. In the Enlightenment perspective people must use
their reason to make moral decisions. Yet, basing ethical choices solely
on human reason is an unstable foundation for ethics because human
beings cannot come up with absolute and unchanging standards.
Morality guided purely on our own reasoning will base morality on
public opinion (the latest polls), or power (might is right). Neither of
these offer a reliable basis for ethics. With regard to the former we know
that public opinion is extremely variable and there is no assurance that
the majority will be right or wise in their will. With regard to the latter
we concede that a powerful ruler might promote good laws and make
wise decisions, but there is every possibility that power will corrupt his
judgement and that he will pursue his own interests. As Christians we
need to point out the weaknesses in these approaches.
We also need to highlight the difficulties that come about when
consequences are detached from choices. At present people feel free to
pursue their rights without real consideration for their responsibilities.
They want to be free to do their own thing without regard for the results
or effects of that. Every action, however, produces a reaction. Every
choice we make has certain effects. Our decisions have consequences. To
teach this to our children is one of the tasks of parenting. Parents need to
encourage their children to consider the results of the decisions they make
and need to let them feel the effects of their wrong choices in a controlled
environment. Many children and young people in New Zealand are not
learning this truth in their homes. Only a widespread return to the truth of
248 Feed My Sheep
God’s Word and to patterns of parenting based on the Bible are going to
solve this problem. Here is where Christians have a great responsibility
and mission.
Despite the pluralism of our age believers must be promoting
biblical values. This is an urgent task because our society has no
unifying consensus on moral issues. The failure of the Code of Social
Responsibility illustrates the difficulties of trying to instil values of
honesty and truth without a Christian ethical base. This same difficulty
confronts educators in the schools and Colleges of Education.
Children and young people need more than “values clarification” and
teachers need to be more than merely “facilitators”. They need to be
taught clear moral principles based on God’s revealed truth. Anything
else may be useful, but it will not provide society with a genuine and
lasting basis for ethical principles.437
Only the Word of God and his law provides an authoritative and
stable basis for morality and truth. It gives us a secure base for moral
standards. God has revealed his truth, will and law to his people. Micah
the prophet explained this to Israel; “He has showed you, O man, what
is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to
love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). The
prophet knew that God had “showed” Israel “what is good”; he had
revealed his will to Israel. This law, however, was not given only to
Israel, but to all people. All human beings are obligated to keep the law
of the Lord because God is our Creator and we are his creatures. He
is the Lawgiver and we are commanded to keep his law. The Lord our
God made all human beings in his image and we are called to respond
to him in love and obedience. God’s will is expressed in the ten
commandments, is amplified in the five books of Moses, and is
summarised by our Lord Jesus in the double command to love God
and to love our neighbour. In the law God has explained how
obedience should work out in practise and in the detail of our lives. If
preachers are going to explain God’s law effectively then we need to be
clear on the content, use and application of the law.
LOVE GOD AND YOUR NEIGHBOUR
The main content and direction of the law can be summarised in the
words of Jesus – that we ought to love God and our neighbour. When
Jesus called us to love God he was summarising the intent of the first
four of the ten commandments. He did this by quoting the words of
Deuteronomy 6:5; “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your strength.” Our Lord described this
as “the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:38). The other
six of the ten commandments lay out the basic principles of living with
our neighbour. When Jesus summarised the intent of these commands
he again went back to the Old Testament, quoting from Leviticus
19:18; “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your
people, but love your neighbour as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39). All
human beings are called to love their neighbours in the same way they
love themselves, because human beings are God’s image-bearers.
This is the reason given for looking after the poor; “He who oppresses
the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the
needy honours God” (Proverbs 14:31). Our attitude towards our
neighbours, and our treatment of them, is an expression of our
relationship with the Lord.
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT LAW
This brief description of the ten commandments and the summary of

the law indicates that the law of God is found in both the Old and the
New Testaments. Few Christians dispute the importance and necessity
of keeping the laws of the New Testament. There is, however,
significant debate over how the laws of the Old Testament apply to
New Testament believers. Some Christians believe that only Old
Testament laws expressly repeated in the New Testament apply today.
At the other end of the spectrum there are those who believe that all the
Old Testament laws in their detail are applicable today unless they
250 Feed My Sheep
have been expressly abrogated in the New Testament. The latter view
is held by ‘theonomists’ who also advocate the ‘Christian
reconstruction’ of society according to the law of God.438
The view that we are only obliged to keep the laws of the New
Testament is seriously flawed. It regards all the laws of the Old
Testament as being of merely historical interest but of no enduring
relevance. This, however, ignores the substantial continuity between
the old and the new covenants. Certainly, many of the Old Testament
laws were given to Israel for their specific situation; but the law of God
is also an expression of his unchanging character and his laws contain
abiding principles. The New Testament bears this out. Jesus quoted
from Old Testament laws in his ‘summary of the law’ (Matthew 22:34-
40). He also told us that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfil
it; “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
disappear from the law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).
With these words Jesus pointed to the continuing validity of Old
Testament law. In the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus clarified
and reinforced the moral principles of the Old Testament Scriptures.
He clearly saw a continuity between the law of the old and the new
covenants.
Some, however, argue against this continuity by pointing to the
New Testament teaching that we are “not under law, but under grace”
(Romans 6:14, Galatians 5:18). They point to verses that describe how
“we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way
of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code” (Romans 7:6).
They read these verses as presenting a contrast between the use of the
law in the Old Testament and that of the New Testament. Some take
this even further and minimise the overall importance and value of the
law (antinomianism). A superficial reading of the passages quoted
above might suggest that now we do not need to live according to the
law but need only to be “led by the Spirit”. Yet, in many other parts of
his letters the Apostle Paul urged his readers to keep the law of the Lord
and spelled out what that law involved. When he says we are “not
under law” he is referring to the law as a means of obtaining

righteousness; believers do not need to gain righteousness through the
law because Christ has gained this righteousness for them. They are
not under the condemnation of the law nor do they need to fear its
punishment. Paul explains this in Romans 8:1-2; “Therefore, there is
now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because
through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of Christ set me free from the
law of sin and death.” In the rest of Romans 8 he explains how a
believer must “live according to the Spirit” (Verse 4). Living according
to the Spirit must not be seen as contrary to living according to the law.
The Spirit and the law are not opposed to each other for the Spirit gave
the law and the Spirit helps us keep the law. This means that believers
in the New Testament who live according to the Spirit are also
obligated to live in obedience to the Lord as defined by the law. Jesus
said; “If you love me you will obey what I command” (John 14:15).
The law of the Old Testament is not to be disregarded – Christians are
obligated to keep the law of the Lord as it is expressed in both the Old
and New Testaments.
Having said this, there are some laws in the Old Testament that no
longer apply to the New Testament believer. The writer of Hebrews
makes it clear that the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in the coming of
Christ. Few Christians dispute this. There is debate, however, over the
continuity of the civil and judicial laws of the Old Testament.
Theonomists argue that we should presume continuity between Old
and New Testament principles and regulations unless God’s revelation
tells us otherwise. They argue that the Old Testament law gives us
principles that apply to the moral, political, economic, and judicial life
of the nation, and that it offers us a model for socio-political
reconstruction in our own day. This law, they say, is to be enforced by
the civil magistrate where and how God has stipulated this.439 As
society becomes more and more Christian it will be possible to apply
these laws in more detail. This view is usually linked to a postmillennial
view of the future – they believe that the kingdom of God will grow and
increase and dominate the world for a long period of time prior to the
252 Feed My Sheep
return of Christ. One of the main exponents of Theonomy, Dr Greg

Bahnsen, argued for “the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive
detail”.440 This, however, is to overstate the continuity. Many of the
laws given to Israel through Moses were addressed to their specific
historical situation living, as they were, as an independent
geographical and political nation. God wanted them to be a distinctive
witness to the other nations of the world. In order to do this he gave
them laws that emphasised their unique position among the nations.
Many of these no longer apply to us. Having said that, all the laws God
gave to Israel have a general principle, or what the Westminster
Confession calls their “general equity”.441 We may presume continuity
between the ethical principles of the Old Testament and those of the
New.442 While the principles apply to believers in the New Testament
many of the details do not because of the differences in culture,
technology and salvation history. To interpret the laws of the Old
Testament, distil the principles, and make a modern day application,
is not a simple matter. Yet all the laws given by God have a continuing
principle that has application to our lives. Understanding and holding
this position keeps us from the two extremes outlined above – that of
completely ignoring the laws of the Old Testament and that of
assuming that they continue on in exhaustive detail. We are called to
love God and our neighbour as defined and described by the law of
God in the Scriptures.
THE THREE USES OF THE LAW
Having described the content of God’s law we should also consider the
application of this law to ourselves. Here it is helpful to think about
what has been described as the ‘three uses’ of God’s law. One purpose
or ‘use’ of the law is to restrain sin in civil society. In this way the law
acts like a bridle on a horse, guiding it in a certain direction and keeping
it from galloping out of control. The police force is an example of this
restraining influence. Where the police force is efficient and respected
lawlessness is curbed. If, however, the police force is corrupt or weak

lawlessness will be free to increase.
The law also functions as a mirror for sin. Just as a mirror shows us
the flaws in our appearance so too the law of God shows us the sins
and failings of our lives. This is clearly explained in Paul’s letter to the
Romans; “Now we know that whatever the law says it says to those
who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the
whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be
declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the
law we become conscious of sin” (Romans 3:19-20). In his law God
requires that we be perfect; “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly
Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Sin is the failure to live a perfect life;
it is a transgression of God’s commandment; it is disobedience to
God’s law. Jesus told us that the first and greatest commandment is to
love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind; correspondingly,
to fail to love God in this way is “the first and greatest delinquency.”443
God does not treat us as robots or toys but as responsible beings. He
holds us accountable for what we do and also for what we fail to do; for
sins of commission and for sins of omission; for wilful sins and for those
that are hidden. Sin must be seen against the brilliant background of
God’s holiness and purity. God is a holy God. He cannot and will not
tolerate sin and evil. He calls his people to be holy as he is holy. David
Wells emphasises the importance of God’s holiness with these words;
The holiness of God is the very cornerstone of Christian faith, for it is the
foundation of reality. Sin is defiance of God’s holiness, the Cross is the
outworking and victory of God’s holiness, and faith is the recognition of God’s
holiness. Knowing that God is holy is therefore the key to knowing life as it truly
is, knowing Christ as he truly is, knowing why he came, and knowing what the
end will be.444
It is because God is holy that he will bring about a final judgement.

Then God will finally balance the scales of good and evil, right and
wrong, justice and injustice. Then each person will receive what is due
254 Feed My Sheep
to him for the deeds he has done, whether good or bad. Every
individual in the world must face this final reckoning; “It is appointed
for a man to die once and then face the judgement” (Hebs 9:27).
Those who have put their hope and trust in Christ Jesus do not need
to fear the judgement because Jesus has died in their place, taken their
punishment and given them his righteousness. Preachers of the gospel
must preach the law of God so that the Holy Spirit might use this to
bring people to recognise their sin and turn to God in repentance. The
law must be preached as a mirror to show people their need of a
saviour. To this end we must preach the holiness of God and the
certainty of the judgement at the end of time. While these may not be
popular themes they are essential to a proper understanding of our
position before the Lord and of the issues of eternity.
A third function of the law is to guide the believer in thankful living.
The law functions as a rule of gratitude.445 It directs the lives of
believers as they seek to express their love for the Lord by living in
obedience to his commands (John 14:15). Even the structure of the
New Testament letters bears this out. For instance, Paul’s letter to the
church in Ephesus begins with a stirring explanation of all that God has
done for the church in and through Christ (chapters 1-3). The
following three chapters (4-6) apply this with detailed instructions on
how to live our lives in response. Paul begins this section by saying; “As
a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the
calling you have received” (Ephesians 4:1). Other letters of the New
Testament follow a similar pattern. Faith must produce works.
Doctrine must be put into practice. What we believe must be evident in
what we do. Part of the task of preachers is to spell out the implications
of the redeemed life. We need to outline the shape of Christian
character. We need to explain how God’s people can express their
thankfulness to the Lord in holy and godly living.
These three uses of the law give the preacher ample opportunities
for explaining the relevance and application of God’s will to our lives:
as a bridle to restrain lawlessness, as a mirror to show us our sin, and
as a rule of gratitude for the believer.
A LOVE FOR GOD’S LAW
Careful explanation and application of the law will enable people to

see the law positively rather than negatively. Unfortunately, too many
people, even Christians, view the law with disapproval. Rather than
eagerly embracing the law of God they hold it at arms length, not
wanting to study or follow its requirements too closely. This was not the
attitude of the man who wrote Psalm 119. He loved the law of the
Lord. In this psalm he reflected on what the law meant to him. He
expressed his appreciation for God’s commands, his delight in God’s
decrees and his longing for God’s laws. He resolved to meditate on
God’s precepts, to choose the way of truth, to set his heart on God’s
laws and to walk in his ways. Here is a rich and varied devotional
meditation of the riches of God’s Word. This lengthy psalm
encourages us to see the law of God positively; his attitude to God’s
commands are an example to us.
This love for God’s law is evident in the lives of many of God’s
people. It was said of Ezra that; “He was a teacher well versed in the
law of Moses.... For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and
observance of the Law of the Lord, and to teaching its decrees and law
in Israel” (Ezra 7:6,10). King David wrote a psalm about the perfection
of God’s law (Psalm 19:7-11) describing its many benefits. The Apostle
Paul described the law as “spiritual” and said that he delighted in it in
his inner being (Romans 7:14, 22). Preachers of the gospel need to
encourage this same loving delight in God’s law that is evident in the
psalms and in the lives of God’s people.
TEACHERS OF GOD’S LAW
Just as the priests of the Old Testament, like Ezra, were to be teachers
of God’s law, pastors today are to continue this task. Only through the
regular reading, preaching and teaching of God’s law can we hope to
see Christians strengthened to resist the relativism of our day. Only
256 Feed My Sheep
through these means can we offer a credible alternative to the moral

morass in our society. This means that pastors themselves need to be
convinced of the validity of God’s law, understand its various
functions, and be able to apply it to our contemporary situation.
There is immense value in pastors encouraging parents to teach
God’s law to their children and instructing them in how to do this. The
law of God ought to be taught in Christian homes. It is the home that
functions as the basic education centre for teaching Christian values.
This is the underlying assumption of the book of Proverbs. Solomon
assumes that instruction, nurture and education all take place in the
context of the family first of all. The exhortation, “Listen my son to a
father’s instruction”, sums up the attitude and emphasis of this
important book of the Bible (Proverbs 4:1). Our aim as parents,
however, is not to enforce an outward conformity to God’s law, but
rather to see willing and heartfelt obedience. Children ought not to
keep the law of God out of fear or social constraint, but rather out of a
genuine desire to please the Lord. Our aim as parents is to see a glad
obedience that arises out of a changed and open heart.446
This is also the aim of pastors and elders in churches. Obedience
ought not to be forced or conscripted but rather be a cheerful and
thankful response to all that God has done for us. Conformity to God’s
law must arise out of a grateful heart. Submission to his will must flow
out of genuine love for the Lord. Obedience like this will be a good
testimony to a society being swept away by the outgoing tide of
relativism and may be used by the Lord to bring New Zealand to a
sound Christian base for moral thinking and action.
Preach Contentment and Hope in Christ 257
Chapter 6
PREACH CONTENTMENT
AND HOPE IN CHRIST
CONTENTMENT IN SOCIETY
Consumerism and materialism have become a way of life in our

western culture. There is a great emphasis on getting and gaining, on
having and holding. People are sold the idea that obtaining more
things is the means to happiness, fulfilment and satisfaction. Millions of
dollars are poured into advertisements to maintain this illusion. The
ad-makers are the “hidden persuaders” of this time, urging us to buy
the things we don’t need to impress the people we don’t like. ‘Keeping
up with the Joneses’ has become such an accepted part of our culture
that we hardly think about it any more.
The Bible has a lot to say in response to this. Some people think of
the Bible as being ‘other-worldly’ – yet it is a book that has a great deal
to say about money and our attitude to possessions. One of the people
of Old Testament times most qualified to speak about the use of money
and wealth was Solomon. He was supremely wealthy. We are told that
“the weight of gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents” (1
Kings 10:14) – the equivalent of 23 tons. There was so much silver
available in Israel at that time they didn’t measure it and considered it
to be of little value (1 Kings 10:21). In addition to his sheer monetary
value he also built a splendid temple, overlaid much of it with gold,
constructed a large palace, sailed a fleet of trading ships, imported and
exported a huge range of goods and received expensive and rare gifts
from people all over the known world. He described his wealth,
activities and projects in the book of Ecclesiastes telling his readers; “I
denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my
labour” (Ecclesiastes 2:10). Having enjoyed such vast wealth and the
258 Feed My Sheep
benefits of great riches Solomon then went on to offer a sobering

perspective on all this; “Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had
done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a
chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun” (verse 11).
He came to the realisation that wealth in itself does not make a person
happy. We have seen enough illustrations of this amongst the ‘stars’ of
Hollywood to know the truth of this statement. Solomon realised that
he could work his whole life and amass vast amounts of wealth, but in
the end he had to leave it to the one who would come after him; “And
who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool?” (Ecclesiastes
2:19).447 The man after him could waste all his hard-earned gain in
frivolous and foolish spending. So there was nothing to be gained in
great wealth. He asked; “What does a man get for all the toil and
anxious striving with which he labours under the sun? All his days his
work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest. This too is
meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 2:22-23). After enjoying the benefits of
wealth and reflecting on his experiences in life Solomon came to the
conclusion that work and wealth were satisfying when seen as a gift
from God and when enjoyed in a relationship with him. Here is his
conclusion; “A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and
find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for
without him, who can eat or drink or find enjoyment” (Ecclesiastes
2:24-25).
The book of Proverbs summarises some of these insights on wealth
in brief, pithy statements that pass on the wisdom gained from
observing life in the light of God’s Word. One of the “Sayings of the
Wise” reads:
Do not wear yourself out to get rich;

have the wisdom to show restraint.
Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone,
for they will surely sprout wings
and fly off to the sky like an eagle. (Proverbs 23:4-5)
In the “Sayings of Agur” we read the following prayer;
give me neither poverty nor riches

but give me only my daily bread.
otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonour the name of my God. (Proverbs 30:8-9)
Proverbs like these are good passages to preach in our consumer-

driven society. Preachers today would do well to advise restraint and
moderation in the accumulation of possessions.
The gospels amplify God’s revelation on the subject of money and
wealth by urging us to use our wealth wisely. Jesus warned his hearers
against storing up “treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves
treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy and where
thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your
heart will be also” (Matthew 6:19-21). Many of the parables of the Lord
address our attitude to money and wealth. The parable of the rich fool
warns against storing up things for ourselves rather than being “rich
toward God” (Luke 12:16-21). The parable about the shrewd
manager was told to encourage us to invest our worldly wealth so as to
help those who are in need; these “friends” will one day welcome us
into “eternal dwellings” (Luke 16:1-9). In the story about the rich man
and Lazarus Jesus contrasts the rich man who lived in luxury and had
no regard for the poor with a beggar named Lazarus who was lying at
the rich man’s gate (Luke 16:19-31). Part of the implied condemnation
of the rich man is that he had no compassion on Lazarus. The parables
of the faithful and wise servant (Matthew 24:45-51), of the talents
(Matthew 25:14-30), of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-36)
and of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) all direct us to make good
use of the talents, abilities, money and the opportunities the Lord gives
to us and remind us that we will be called to account for how we have
260 Feed My Sheep
used these things. Preaching through parables such as these gives us

opportunity to make many helpful applications as to how people
ought to use the time and money the Lord has given to them.
In the letters of the New Testament there are further instructions
about using our wealth. Where God has blessed people materially they
are urged to be generous with what God has given to them;
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant or to put
their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who
richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do
good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this
way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming
age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (1 Timothy 6:17-18).
In the same letter the Apostle Paul describes the benefit of contentment
and the danger of the love of money;
Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the
world and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we
will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and
a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and
destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. (1 Timothy 6:6-
10).
It is not easy to be content with what we have. Advertising has

influenced us in subtle ways to create the ‘new poor’ – the people who
live in a plain three bedroom home, who run an old Victa lawnmower,
who have a previous generation computer, who are wearing last year’s
fashion. In the face of a barrage of clever advertising it is difficult to
resist the temptation to covet the latest Toyota, the new microwave,
this season’s clothing, that leather lounge suite. If we fall for this
temptation we will become restless, disgruntled and dissatisfied. We
will end up unhappy and ungrateful. Christians today need to learn
what the Apostle Paul had discovered;
for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is

to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of
being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether
living in plenty or in want. I can do all things through him who gives me the
strength. (Philippians 4:11-13).
To learn this contentment we need to remind ourselves and our

listeners that God will provide for all our needs. And we need to learn
to be content with God himself. This truth is expressed in the Psalms;
“Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire
besides you. My heart and my flesh may fail, but God is the strength of
my heart and my portion forever” (Psalm 73:25-26). The writer of
Hebrews directs us to contentment with the Lord himself when he
writes; “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content
with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you;
never will I forsake you’” (Hebrews 13:5). True contentment comes as
we seek God so much that everything else seems unimportant in
comparison; all else fades into the background because we are seeking
first, “his kingdom and his righteousness”, trusting that all these things
will be given to us as well (Matthew 6:33). Again an exposition of these
passages would be most useful to people living in our materialistic
atmosphere. Preachers of the gospel can encourage people to resist
the pressure to envy their neighbour’s goods and the temptation to
covet their possessions.
CONTENTMENT IN THE CHURCH
It is vitally important that preachers have a biblical perspective on these

matters because the church itself has been influenced by a ‘consumer’
mentality. Some have tried to win people to Christ by telling them how
Jesus can meet all their needs. Still others have tried to make the gospel
appealing by emphasising the ‘fulfilment’ that God offers to Christians.
These approaches reflect, to a greater or lesser degree, attempts to
262 Feed My Sheep
market the gospel. There are, however, problems with these methods.
The approach that emphasises people’s needs often ignores the
deepest need that people have – to be in a right relationship with God
through the Lord Jesus Christ. People’s needs are limitless, especially
in our affluent consumer society where ‘greeds’ are confused with
‘needs’. Sometimes these needs provide us with a way into the lives of
people, allowing us to lead them to the deeper and larger issues of life.
As pastors we need to realise that we are not just another helping
profession, like doctors and lawyers. Our task is not to help people get
out of their problems as an end in itself, but rather to point them to God
in the midst of their problems. Our aim is not to help them be a little less
miserable but rather to orientate them towards God. To do this
requires a great deal of concentration. We must ruthlessly eliminate all
the tasks that are distractions away from this and concentrate our time
and energy on preaching, teaching and pastoring the people of the
church to live in the presence of God and in the light of his Word. Our
primary concern, then, is that people hear the truth about God.
“Failing at that, the pastoral ministry is doomed to the petty concerns
of helping people feel a bit better rather than inviting them to dramatic
conversion.”448 People’s greatest need is the conversion of their lives
– that they turn from being absorbed with selfishness and self-interest
and turn to live selflessly for the Lord. Our task is to direct them to this
Lord who calls for a wholehearted and total commitment of life.
The faithful pastor is the one who helps people look past their own
surface needs to the deepest need in their life. People may come to
church for all sorts of reasons: They may come because they want to
meet others rather than be home alone; or they may come to find help
for a failing marriage; or for advice in dealing with troublesome
teenagers; or to break a bad habit. Whatever the motivation the pastor
can help them to look beyond these real but secondary needs, to their
primary need to be reconciled with God through Christ. They are in
church because God, in his wise and powerful providence, has led
them there so that they might be saved by him.449 They must be helped
to realise their real need before a Holy God and, through Christ, come
to know him.
The approach that promises all Christians a ‘fulfilling’ life can also
be misleading. Pritchard offers a helpful critique of this approach as it
is practised by Willow Creek.450 He notes that there are verses in the
Bible, especially in Proverbs, that speak of the positive effects of
serving the Lord. Yet there are also passages in the Scriptures that warn
us that Christianity will not always be fulfilling. Jesus warned his
disciples; “In the world you will have trouble” (John 16:33). They
could “take heart” because he had “overcome the world”, but that
would not take away the fact that they would experience difficulty.
Often in his letters the Apostle Paul wrote of the troubles he had been
through (2 Corinthians 1:8-9, 4:8-12, 16-18, 12:7-10, Philippians
1:12-14). He knew that his readers had also experienced trouble and
that God had comforted them in it (2 Corinthians 1:1-7). He warned
Timothy that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus
will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:12). The writer of Hebrews described the
persecution and suffering of God’s people in times past (Hebrews
11:35-39) and urged his readers to “endure hardship as discipline”
because God was treating them as sons (Hebrews 12:7). In the letters
to the churches in Revelation the Lord warned the church in Smyrna,
and the church of Christ of all ages and places, that some believers
would be imprisoned and persecuted and urged them to “be faithful,
even to the point of death,” encouraging them with the promise, “and
I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). All these verses warn
us that following Christ will often involve cross-bearing. Pritchard
comments;
To argue for Christianity primarily by pointing to its usefulness in satisfying

needs is ultimately to undercut it. To teach Christianity as a means eventually
teaches that it is superfluous. If someone is able to satisfy their felt needs
without Christ, the message of Christianity can be discarded.... Fulfilment
theology has an inadequate understanding of the biblical truth about the
fallenness of the world and the role of suffering in the Christian life.451
264 Feed My Sheep
Approaches that seek to ‘market’ the gospel by emphasising its

benefits and appealing to the needs of the ‘consumers’ run the grave
danger of watering down the truth of the Bible. Preachers following this
method will be tempted to blunt the sharp edges of the Bible, to soften
the hard truth and to down-play the demands placed on followers of
Jesus. They may shy away from urging people to “count the cost”
before submitting to Jesus. They may hesitate to talk about the
“narrow way” that leads to life, or fail to warn people of the persecution
that may well come to believers. When the Scriptures speak about
communicating the gospel they describe it as truth that needs to be
“proclaimed” to needy and selfish individuals, not as a message to be
‘marketed’ to the needs of consumers. We would do well to stay with
the biblical method. For the Holy Spirit, in and through the Scriptures,
is pointing people beyond the trials and troubles of this world to the
better world that is yet to come. Preachers of the gospel, therefore,
must also preach its hope.
THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL
People in the western world are pre-occupied with the here and now.
Despite the increasing interest in the supernatural the vision of most
people extends only as far as the material things of the present and to
the borders of this life. Christians too have been profoundly influenced
by the world view around us that teaches us to expect happiness and
fulfilment today. We, along with the rest of society, have come to
regard this as our right. “We’ve recast Christianity into a mould that
puts happiness above holiness, blessings here above blessings in
heaven, health and wealth as God’s best gifts and death as the
supreme disaster.”452 The message of the Bible, however, is that we
are not here to live for the moment nor to please ourselves. Rather we
are here to “glorify God and enjoy him forever”.453 The Scriptures
point us beyond this world to the world to come. Our hope does not lie
in what we can gather around us in this life, but in what God will give
us in the life beyond this one. The supreme goal is heaven; this world
is not an end in itself but is a preparation for the inheritance waiting for
us. We are to look beyond this life to the eternal future God has
promised to all believers. This is the Christian hope spoken of in the
Bible.
Hope is one aspect of the famous triad of faith, hope and love (1
Cor 13:13). As believers we look forward in hope to the return of the
Lord Jesus and the final consummation of His kingdom. We are
painfully aware that all is not right in this present world, but we know
there is a better world coming. The Apostle Paul describes our present
suffering and our future expectation in these famous words of Romans
chapter 8;
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth
right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the
firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as
sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved (Romans
8:22-24).
By its definition hope is looking forward; “Hope that is seen is no hope

at all” (Romans 8:24). Christians, however, have not yet received their
final inheritance and so they are still looking ahead.
Without this expectation for the future our faith would be useless.
The Apostle Paul makes this point very clearly when writing to the
church in Corinth. Under the influence of Greek philosophy some of
the Christians had difficulty believing in the resurrection of the dead.
Paul pointed out the logical necessity of a future resurrection by basing
it in the resurrection of Christ. He explained that the physical
resurrection of Jesus is the absolute foundation of the Christian faith.
If Jesus has not been raised from the dead certain things must follow:
Our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found
to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised
Christ from the dead.... Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ Jesus
are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than
266 Feed My Sheep
all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those
who have fallen asleep.” (1 Corinthians 15:14-20).
Without the resurrection of Jesus preaching would be pointless, our

faith would be futile, the apostles would be liars and we would have no
hope. By contrast, the resurrection of the Lord gives point to our
preaching, purpose to our faith, confirms the testimony of the apostles
and guarantees our hope. The hope of a future resurrection is
absolutely essential to the Christian faith. This hope is squarely based
on the historical event of the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Christ whom God raised from the dead through the power of the Holy
Spirit. Just as Jesus was raised, so too believers will be raised to live
with the Triune God in the glory of heaven.
Believers look forward to heaven. Sometimes we do not look
forward to it as much as we might because our view of life in the
hereafter is too misty and vague – we picture it as soft clouds, golden
harps and beautiful choirs. Yet the biblical descriptions of the future
describe a new heaven and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13, Revelation
21:1).454 It is likely that heaven will be a lot more like this earth than we
usually imagine it to be; except that it will be this earth thoroughly
renewed. Anthony Hoekema notes that “to leave the new earth out of
consideration when we think of the final state of believers is greatly to
impoverish biblical teaching about the life to come.” He writes;
The Bible assures us that God will create a new earth on which we shall live to
God’s praise in glorified, resurrected bodies. On that new earth, therefore, we
hope to spend eternity, enjoying its beauties, exploring its resources, and using
its treasures to the glory of God. Since God will make the new earth his dwelling
place, and since where God dwells there heaven is, we shall then continue to
be in heaven while we are on the new earth. For heaven and earth will then no
longer be separated, as they are now, but will be one (see Revelation 21:1-3).455
Jeffrey Burton Russell corrects mistaken ideas about heaven when he

says; Heaven is “not dull; it is not static; it is not monochrome. It is an
endless dynamic of joy.”456 Or as another writer puts it;
Heaven is destination and reward, succour and relief from earthly trials. It is
reunion with those we love, forever, as we loved them. It is our real home, our
permanent address, our own true country. It is the New Jerusalem and
Paradise Regained, the community of Saints and the eternal Eucharist;
everlasting Easter and a million Christmases. It is an end to death’s sting; it is
the eternal, ongoing, ever growing experience of God. It is the ecstatic dream
of St John: Holy, holy, holy.457
To describe the happiness of heaven the biblical writers use the

pictures and language of this earth. The prophets of the Old Testament
pictured a richly productive earth, the desert blossoming like a rose, the
ploughman overtaking the reaper and the mountains producing sweet
wine. To aid our appreciation of heaven God tells us that; “There will
be no more mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has
passed away” (Revelation 21:4). This is what we would expect in a
world where God is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28).
All that happens in heaven centres on God and his throne. When
the Apostle John was given a description of the glory of heaven his
opening vision was of “a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it”
(Revelation 4:2). This throne is full of majesty and glory and the one
seated on it is the object of worship by all the people and creatures of
heaven. In her book, Heaven, Your Real Home, Joni Eareckson Tada
gives us a thoroughly God-centred picture of what heaven will be like;
“Most of all, together we shall fall on our faces at the foot of the throne
and worship our Saviour forever”. She also encourages us with the
blessings that will be ours; “Together, we shall receive the morning star
and be crowned with life, righteousness and glory.”458
Christian hope must be centred on the coming of the Lord Jesus,
the resurrection of the dead and the new heaven and earth that will
follow. Preachers of the gospel do not help believers or unbelievers by
speculating on the details of exactly what will happen before Jesus
returns, nor by attempting to set dates and predict the time of Jesus
coming (the very thing Jesus warned us against doing). We would do
well to avoid the temptation of attempting to pry into matters God has
not revealed to us and instead, follow the main lines and clear events
268 Feed My Sheep
of our future expectation.

It is vitally important that we not only help our listeners to
understand the past but that we also point them towards the future.
This doctrine of Christ’s return is crucial because we only understand
the present in the light of the past and the future. We will only
appreciate the full story of what God is doing when we come to the
end. At present we only have a partial view; then we will have the full
perspective. So we live in the present in the light of the future; we live
in the hope of what is to come. The Bible teaches us that the Triune
God is guiding all of history and is using the church to spread the
gospel so as to prepare people for Christ’s second coming. Life is not
merely “a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing.”459 History is not cyclical as the Greeks believed, nor is it pre-
determined by the unseen hand of fate. Rather, it is the record of how
God is guiding all people and all events in this world for his overall
purposes. Theologians describe this as God’s providence: By this, “We
believe that the same good God, after he had created all things, did not
forsake them or give them up to fortune or chance, but that he rules
and governs them according to his holy will, so that nothing happens
in this world without his appointment.”460 The history of God’s work
in the world has a beginning, in creation; a mid-point, in the birth of
Christ; and an end, in his coming again. History is going somewhere;
it has a goal; it is moving to a grand finale. Preachers of the Word have
the great privilege of proclaiming the victorious work of the Lord Jesus
Christ in the assurance that God will bring history to a triumphant
conclusion in the second coming of our Lord.
269
270 Feed My Sheep
271
CONCLUSION
My concern in writing this book is to build confidence in preaching as

the primary, although by no means the only instrument God uses to
build his church. Certainly the church in New Zealand, at this present
time, needs to be built up. On the one hand, the evangelical church in
this country has had an anti-intellectual attitude that has tended
towards revivalism, pietism and a devotional strain of Christianity. This
has also made it more open to the influence of the charismatic
movement which has put more emphasis on experience than on
theological thinking. On the other hand, the intellectual part of the
church in New Zealand has tended towards liberalism which has
weakened the church by removing the biblical and living heart out of
the Christian faith.
Preachers ought to be building up the church, but preaching in New
Zealand is in bad shape today. People tend to get more excited about
‘prophecy’ and visions than they do about expository sermons. Too
often this is because the preacher has not studied the passage carefully
and so his sermon is shallow and lacking application. However, both
pastor Murray Robertson and Bishop Derek Eaton, speaking from very
different denominational backgrounds, have noted that people will
show up for good expository preaching. “Some means will grow the
church faster”, Bishop Eaton commented, “but nothing will grow the
church more solidly than good expository preaching.”461 Preaching is
like the shop window of the church; it is the face the church presents at
weddings, funerals and at the services on Sundays. This being so,
preachers need to aim for sermons that have quality and substance
rather than sermons that are merely froth and bubble.
Sound expository sermons must then be applied to the situation in
which we live. As preachers we are called to apply the truth of God’s
Word to the people around us. This requires an understanding of the
Word of God and of our present world. If we as preachers are going to
help others to find and follow the truth we must be carefully exegeting
272 Feed My Sheep
the Scriptures and reading widely about the world we live in.
This is not an easy task, especially with all the pressures and
distractions around us as ministers. Yet we can take heart from the
immense benefits of good preaching. Such preaching will build
believers to maturity in Christ and will also reach the lost. Both of these
are important goals for preachers. God has given “some to be pastors
and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the
body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and
in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to
the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-13). The
great goal of our work as pastors is to bring people to spiritual maturity
in Christ. Preaching is a primary, God-ordained means of bringing this
about, and is also a very efficient method. The pastor has most of his
contact with most of his people via the pulpit. Even this makes it worth
investing the time and mental energy into sermon preparation.
Furthermore, preaching is a primary means of reaching the lost.
The Apostle Paul asks; “How then can they call on the one they have
not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they
have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching
to them? ....Consequently, faith comes by hearing the message, and
the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:14-17).
This is not to deny that most of the initial contacts in evangelistic work
are made through the individual witness of Christians to those around
them. But the Apostle Paul recognises the central role of preaching in
bringing people to saving faith in Christ. We need to recognise this in
our own day and give ourselves to this great task of heralding the good
news of God’s salvation in Christ Jesus.
As we go about this double task of building up believers and
reaching those who do not believe, we can take some instruction from
John Bunyan’s picture of the pastor; “...as you see him with his eyes
looking up toward heaven, the best of books in his hand, and the law
of truth written on his lips, this is to show you that his work is to know
and unfold dark things to sinners... as you see him stand as if he
pleaded with men....”462 To “plead with men” you need to “...devote
Conclusion 273
yourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to

teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13). We do this, confident of God’s promise
regarding the Word that goes out from his mouth;
It will not return to me empty,

but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it (Isaiah 55:11).
We do this expecting that “all the ends of the earth will see the salvation
of our God” (Isaiah 52:10) for his ultimate honour.
How beautiful on the mountains

are the feet of those who bring good news,
Who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
“Your God reigns!” (Isaiah 52:7).
It is our task to proclaim peace; to bring good tidings; to announce

salvation; to declare; “God reigns!”
274 Feed My Sheep
275
APPENDIX
276 Feed My Sheep
Appendix
THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY
DIRECTORY FOR THE
PUBLICK WORSHIP OF GOD
OF THE PREACHING OF THE WORD
Preaching of the word, being the power of God unto salvation, and
one of the greatest and most excellent works belonging to the ministry
of the gospel, should be so performed, that the workman need not be
ashamed, but may save himself, and those that hear him.
It is presupposed (according to the rules for ordination), that the

minister of Christ is in some good measure gifted for so weighty a
service, by his skill in the original languages, and in such arts and
sciences as are handmaid unto divinity; by his knowledge in the whole
body of theology, but most of all in the holy scriptures, having his
senses and heart exercised in them above the common sort of
believers; and by the illumination of God’s Spirit, and other gifts of
edification, which (together with reading and studying of the word) he
ought still to seek by prayer, and an humble heart, resolving to admit
and receive any truthes not yet attained, whenever God shall make it
known unto him. All which he is to make use of, and improve, in his
private preparations, before he deliver in publick what he hath
provided.
Ordinarily, the subject of his sermon is to be some text of scripture,

holding forth some principle or head of religion, or suitable to some
special occasion emergent; or he may go on in some chapter, psalm,
or book of the holy scripture, as he shall see fit.
Appendix 277
Let the introduction to his text be brief and perspicuous, drawn from
the text itself, or context, or some parallel place, or general sentence of
scripture.
If the text be long (as in histories or parables it sometimes must be), let
him give a brief sum of it; if short, a paraphrase thereof, if need be: in
both, looking diligently to the scope of the text, and pointing at the
chief heads and grounds of doctrine which he is to raise from it.
In analysing and dividing his text, he is to regard more the order of

matter than of words; and neither to burden the memory of the hearers
in the beginning with too many members of division, not to trouble
their minds with obscure terms of art.
In raising doctrines from the text, his care ought to be, First, That the
matter be the truth of God. Secondly, That it be a truth contained in or
grounded on that text, that the hearers may discern how God teacheth
it from thence. Thirdly, That he chiefly insist upon those doctrines
which are principally intended, and make most for the edification of
the hearers.
The doctrine is to be expressed in plane terms; or, if any thing in it need

explication, it is to be opened, and the consequence also from the text
cleared. The parallel places of scripture, confirming the doctrine, are
rather to be plain and pertinent, than many, and (if need be) somewhat
insisted upon, and applied to the purpose in hand.
The arguments or reasons are to be solid, and, as much as may be,

convincing. The illustrations, of what kind soever, ought to be full of
light, and such as may convey the truth into the hearer’s heart with
spiritual delight.
If any doubt obvious from Scripture, reason, or prejudice of the

hearers, seem to arise, it is very requisite to remove it, by reconciling
278 Feed My Sheep
the seeming differences, answering the reasons, and discovering and

taking away the causes of prejudice and mistake. Otherwise it is not fit
to detain the hearers with propounding or answering vain or wicked
cavils, which, as they are endless, so the propounding and answering
of them doth more hinder than promote edification.
He is not to rest in general doctrine, although never so much cleared

and confirmed, but to bring it home to special use, by application to his
hearers: which albeit it prove a work of great difficulty to himself,
requiring much prudence, zeal, and meditation, and to the natural and
corrupt man will be very unpleasant; yet he is to endeavour to perform
it in such a manner, that his auditors may feel the word of God to be
quick and powerful, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the
heart; and that, if any unbeliever or ignorant person be present, he
may have the secrets of his heart made manifest, and give glory to
God.
In the use of instruction or information in the knowledge of some truth,

which is a consequence from his doctrine, he may (when convenient)
confirm it by a few firm arguments from the text in hand, and other
places of scripture, or from the nature of that commonplace in divinity,
whereof that truth is a branch.
In confutation of false doctrines, he is neither to raise an old heresy

from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily:
but, if the people be in danger of an error, he is to confute it soundly,
and endeavour to satisfy their judgments and consciences against all
objections.
In exhorting to duties, he is, as he seeth cause, to teach also the means

that help to the performance of them.
In dehortation, reprehension, and publick admonition (which require

special wisdom), let him, as there shall be cause, not only discover the
Appendix 279
nature and greatness of the sin, with the misery attending it, but also
show the danger his hearers are in to be overtaken and surprised by it,
together with the remedies and best way to avoid it.
In applying comfort, whether general against all temptations, or

particular against some special troubles or terrors, he is carefully to
answer such objections as a troubled heart and afflicted spirit may
suggest to the contrary.
It is also sometimes requisite to give some notes of trial (which is very

profitable, especially when performed by able and experienced
ministers, which circumspection and prudence, and the signs clearly
grounded on the holy scripture), whereby the hearers may be able to
examine themselves whether they have attained those graces, and
performed those duties, to which he exhorteth, or be guilty of the sin
reprehended, and in danger of the judgments threatened, or are such
to whom the consolations propounded do belong; that accordingly
they may be quickened and excited to duty, humbled for their wants
and sins, affected with their danger, and strengthened with comfort, as
their condition, upon examination, shall require.
And, as he needeth not always to prosecute every doctrine which lies

in his text, so is he wisely to make choice of such uses, as, by his
residence and conversing with his flock, he findeth most needful and
seasonable; and, amongst these, such as may most draw their souls to
Christ, the fountain of light, holiness, and comfort.
This method is not prescribed as necessary for every man, or upon

every text; but only recommended as being found by experience to be
very much blessed of God, and very helpful for the people’s
understandings and memories.
But the servant of Christ, whatever his method be, is to perform his
whole ministry:
280 Feed My Sheep
1. Painfully, not doing the work of the Lord negligently.

2. Plainly, that the meanest may understand; delivering the truth not in the
enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; abstaining also
from an unprofitable use of unknown tongues, strange phrases, and cadences
of sounds and words; sparingly citing sentences of ecclesiastical or other
human writers, ancient or modern, be they never so elegant.
3. Faithfully, looking at the honour of Christ, the conversion, edification,
and salvation of the people, not at his own gain or glory; keeping nothing
back which may promote those holy ends, giving to every one his own
portion, and bearing indifferent respect unto all, without neglecting the
meanest, or sparing the greatest, in their sins.
4. Wisely, framing all his doctrines, exhortation, and especially his
reproofs, in such a manner as may be most likely to prevail; showing all
due respect to each man’s person and place, and not mixing his own
passion or bitterness.
5. Gravely, as becometh the word of God; shunning all such gesture,
voice, and expressions, as may occasion the corruptions of men to
despise him and his ministry.
6. With loving affection, that the people may see all coming from his godly
zeal, and hearty desire to do them good. And,
7. As taught of God, and persuaded in his own heart, that all that he
teacheth is the truth of Christ; and walking before his flock, as an example
to them in it; earnestly, both in private and publick, recommending his
labours to the blessing of God, and watchfully looking to himself, and the
flock whereof the Lord hath made him overseer: So shall the doctrine of
truth be preserved uncorrupt, many souls converted and built up, and
himself receive manifold comforts of his labours, even in this life, and
afterward the crown of glory laid up for him in the world to come.
Where there are more ministers in a congregation than one, and they of
different gifts, each may more especially apply himself to doctrine or
exhortation, according to the gift wherein he most excelleth, and as they
shall agree between themselves.
281
282 Feed My Sheep
283
NOTES
284 Feed My Sheep
NOTES
INTRODUCTION
1. The title of a recent book by Brian Carrell, Moving Between Times – Modernity
and Postmodernity: A Christian View (Auckland: The Deep Sight Trust, 1998).
PART I: Chapter 1 - The State of Preaching
2. Gordon Miller, Reflections, Issue 17, (September/October 2000).
3. A special feature enclosed with the 1997 Annual Report of the Baptist Union.
4. They wrote: “Good leaders are invariably effective communicators, and even in
this day of high tech communication, good biblical preaching still seems to be
God’s primary method of imparting truth, igniting passion and motivating the will
to action.” Ibid.
5. John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth
Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p.7.
6. Craig A. Loscalzo, Preaching Sermons that Connect: Effective Communication
Through Identification (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), p.31.
7. Frank Colquhoun, Christ’s Ambassadors: The Priority of Preaching (Grand Rap-
ids: Baker Book House, 1965), pp.19-20.
PART I: Chapter 2 - Is Preaching Effective?
8. Klaas Runia, The Sermon Under Attack (Exeter: Paternoster, 1983), p.3.
9. Stott, Between Two Worlds, p.67.
10. Steve Brown, Haddon Robinson and William Willimon, A Voice in the Wilder-
ness: Clear Preaching in a Complicated World (Portland: Multnomah, 1993), p.16.
11. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (London: Methuen, 1985), pp.88,
102.
12. Ibid., p.45.
13. Ibid., p.89.
14. Richard Zoglin, “The News Wars,” Time (21 October 1996), p.55.
15. G. A. Pritchard, Willow Creek Seeker Services: Evaluating a New Way of
Doing Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), p.89.
16. Ibid., p.89.
17. Ibid., p.92.
18. Bill McNabb and Steven Mabry, Teaching the Bible Creatively: How to Awaken
Your Kids to Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p.13.
19. Ibid., p.11.
21. Colquhoun, Christ’s Ambassadors, p.22.
22. Aristotle said that one of the three important elements in effective communica-
Notes 285
tion is pathos by which he meant passion and fervour. The other two were logos –
the verbal content of the message, and ethos – the perceived character of the
speaker. Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository
Sermon (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), pp.25-26.
23. Gerhard Friedrich, “kerusein,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testa-
ment, Vol.III, Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1965), p.703.
24. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV i 5, IV iii 2, John T. McNeill,
ed., The Library of Christian Classics, Vol.XXI (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1960), pp.1019, 1055.
25. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol.2, The New International Com-
mentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp.58, 59.
26. Pierre Ch. Marcel, The Relevance of Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1963), p.18.
27. “Heidelberg Catechism,” Question and Answer 67, in Forms and Confessions
of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand (Wellington: National Publishing Com-
mittee of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand, 1994), p.71.
28. J. I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible (Westchester: Cornerstone Books,
1980), p.84.
30. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1971), p.23.
32. D. Bentley Taylor, Augustine: Wayward Genius (London: Hodder and
33. M. Marshall, The Restless Heart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p.110.
34. Allegorical interpretation occurs when a preacher jumps over the plain mean-
ing of the text to a more ‘spiritual’ interpretation.
35. The cathedra was the seat from which Augustine preached while the people
stood to listen.
36. Marshall, The Restless Heart, p.109.
37. Johannes Gutenberg developed the movable metal type printing press about
1445. The first complete book known to have been printed in the Christian world
was the Bible in 1456.
38. Brian H. Edwards, Shall we Dance? (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1984),
p.126.
39. Peter Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism (Haywards Heath: Carey Publications,
1977), p.12.
40. This is not the place for an extended treatment of the Puritans and their preach-
286 Feed My Sheep
ing. Readers wishing to do some more reading in this area would do well to read
Lewis’ book, The Genius of Puritanism; J. I. Packer, A Quest For Godliness: The
Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990); and Dr. Martyn
Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth). Many of the writings of the Puritans have been republished by the Banner
of Truth.
41. Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism, p.20.
42. Select Practical Writings of Robert Trail, quoted in Lewis, The Genius of Puri-
tanism, pp.37, 39.
43. The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, D.D., 6 vols. Quoted in Lewis, The
Genius of Puritanism, p.36.
44. Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor, with an introduction by J. I. Packer
(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), p.9.
45. Packer, A Quest For Godliness, pp.44-45.
46. J. C. Ryle, Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century (1885. Reprinted in
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1978), p.28.
47. R. B. Kuiper, The Church in History (Grand Rapids: The National Union of
Christian Schools, 1951), p.356.
48. Ralph Turnball, Jonathan Edwards: The Preacher, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1958), p.100.
49. Ibid., quoting from Works, Vol.III, p.594.
50. Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 1987), p.328.
51. B. Larson, Wind and Fire (Waco: Word Books, 1984), p.43.
52. Arnold Dallimore, Spurgeon: A New Biography (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1985), pp.190-192.
53. Pritchard, Willow Creek Seeker Services, p.116.
54. Ronald G. Newton, “The Organ and the Organist in Reformed Worship, Part
1", Faith in Focus, Vol.24, No.2 (March 1998), p.6.
55. The Westminster Confession of Faith in Forms and Confessions of the Re-
formed Churches of New Zealand, (Wellington: National Publishing Committee of
the Reformed Churches of New Zealand, 1994), chp.21.
56. The Collins Concise Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd ed., s.v. “drama.”
57. John M. Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing,
1996), p.94.
58. E.g. Isaiah’s name (Isaiah 8:1-4); Jeremiah’s waistband, yoke and field (Jer
13:1-7, 28:10, 32:7-14); Ezekiel’s enactment of the siege of Jerusalem and the
exile (Ezekiel 4:1-5:4, 21:1-7).
59. Edwards, Shall we Dance, pp.68-78.
Notes 287

61. Ibid., p.193.
62. Edwards, Shall We Dance, p.90.
PART I: Chapter 3 - Is Preaching Authoritative?
63. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible, p.108.
64. The Press (Feb or March 1998).
65. Colquhoun, Christ’s Ambassadors, pp.33-34.
67. Ibid.
68. Loscalzo, Preaching Sermons that Connect, p.31.
70. “Belgic Confession,” Article V, cf. “Westminster Confession of Faith,” Chapter
I, in Forms and Confessions of the Reformed Church of New Zealand.
71. James Stewart, Preaching (London: English University Press, 1946), p.61.
72. Ibid.
73. “I am a Stranger Here,” in Trinity Hymnal (Philadelphia: The Orthodox Pres-
byterian Church, 1961), No.695.
74. Chapell, Christ-centred Preaching, pp. 28-29.
75. Ibid., p.29.
76. John Bunyan, The Pilgrims’s Progress: An Outlined Study Manual with Accu-
rate Text Revision by Barry E Horner (North Brunswick: Horner, 1997), p.38.
78. Stott, The Preacher’s Portrait: Some New Testament Word Studies (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), p.29.
79. Chapell, Christ Centered Preaching, p.88.
80. Stewart, Preaching, p.19.
81. Stott, The Preacher’s Portrait, p.24.
82. Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of
Expository Messages (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), p.18.
83. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (IV, xi, 1), p.1213.
85. “The Ordination Service,” Book of Common Prayer. Anglican Church of
Aotearoa New Zealand.
86. Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting
and Preaching Biblical literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp.9-10.
87. Chapell, Christ Centred Preaching, p.52.
88. Ibid., p.53.
89. Robinson, Biblical Preaching, p.20.
90. Ibid., p.33.
288 Feed My Sheep

92. This is one of G. A. Pritchard’s key criticisms of Willow Creek’s seeker services.
He believes that in pursuing a topical approach Willow Creek has made too much
use of psychological categories to explain the Bible. In a further criticism he believes
that their emphasis on Christianity as a fulfilling way to live distorts the overall mes-
sage of the Bible. Pritchard, Willow Creek Seeker Services, Chp.17-18.
PART I: Chapter 4 - Is Preaching Relevant?
95. H. A. Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press,
1975), p.81.
97. Campbell Morgan, Preaching (London: Oliphants, 1964), p.11.
98. Marcel, The Relevance of Preaching, p.58.
99. Peter Berger, Facing up to Modernity, (New York: Basic Books, 1977), p.236.
100. M. Wilcock, The Saviour of the World, The Bible Speaks Today Series, (Down-
ers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979), p.196.
101. Morgan, Preaching, p.20.
102. McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1988), pp.92-93.
104. Loscalzo, Preaching Sermons that Connect, pp.21-22.
105. Stott, The Preacher’s Portrait, p.81.
106. Ibid., p.88.
108. Westminster Confession of Faith, I vi.
109. Runia, The Sermon Under Attack, p.75.
110. Gene Edward Veith Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contempo-
rary Thought and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), p.xii.
111. Ibid.
112. John Crawshaw and Wayne Kirkland, New Zealand Made: Perspectives on
Mission in Aotearoa (Wellington: Signpost Communications, 1994), p.49.
113. Os Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What
To Do About It (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994), p.92.
114. Marcel, The Relevance of Preaching, p.59.
115. Brown et al., A Voice in the Wilderness, pp.17, 116.
116. Morgan, Preaching, p.21.
118. Stott, A Preacher’s Portrait, p.28. Sometimes this has been described as
Notes 289
“contextualising” the gospel, although this term has so many different shades of
meaning it is probably not particularly helpful.
119. Alister McGrath maintains that this is a classic approach: That we “identify
what Scripture is saying, and apply it to new contexts” (McGrath, Evangelicalism
and the Future of Christianity, p.117.) Sidney Greidanus describes the necessity of
keeping “two horizons” in view – the Biblical text must be taken seriously but the
preacher will also take seriously the contemporary context and audience.
(Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, p.137.) In my opinion the
approach recommended by R. Middleton and B. Walsh is too open-ended; they
reject a “blind submission to the text” which “treats Scripture (and God, its Au-
thor) as... a tyrannical authority to be imposed from the outside”. Instead they
suggest a “faithful improvisation” which “does not mean blind submission to every
text of Scripture, but the enactment of God’s redemptive purposes through dis-
cernment of the thrust of the entire metanarrative.” (Middleton and Walsh, Truth is
Stranger Than it Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1995), pp.185-6.) While it is true that we don’t have a script to
follow word for word, we do have clear commands to obey and specific laws to
put into practice.
121. Ibid., p.96.
122. Brown et al., A Voice in the Wilderness, p.73.
124. Crawshaw & Kirkland, New Zealand Made, p.22.
125. Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism, p.47.
126. Ibid., p.48.
127. David F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical
Theology? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). p.251.
PART II: Chapter 1 - A General Historical Overview
128. Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, (Louisville: West-
minster/John Knox Press, 1989), p.2.
129. Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, Resident Aliens, (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1989), p.15.
130. Quoted in D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1993), p.552.
131. Veith, Postmodern Times, p.29.
132. Paganism and rationalism did not blend together well and there was an un-
easy relationship between these two world-views in Greek society. This is illus-
trated in Socrates who rejected the mythological world-view arguing for one su-
preme God. He regarded the ‘gods’ as nothing more than the projection of human
290 Feed My Sheep
vices. For his “atheism” he was forced to drink hemlock. Veith, Postmodern Times,
p.29.
133. The gospels give us four accounts of the life of the Lord Jesus while the letters
of the New Testament explain the significance of who he was and what he did.
These writings form the basis of the New Testament church, being “built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself as the chief
cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). The foundation of the church need only be laid
once and so there has been no further need of apostles or prophets since the early
church. The 66 books of the Bible form the complete revelation of God to his
people giving us all we need to know for faith and life (2 Timothy 3:16-17), “unto
which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit,
or traditions of men.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, I vi). Cf. Luke 16:29-31,
Revelation 22:18-19.
134. Robert E. Coleman, The Master Plan of Discipleship, (Old Tappan: Fleming
H. Revell Co., 1987), pp.39-40.
135. The following two standard church history texts provide more detail for
readers: Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 Volumes (Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1996); and Tim Dowley, ed., Handbook to the History of
Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
136. Brian Carrell, “Understanding our Western World Today, Part 2: The Church
Beyond Christendom,” Affirm, Vol.5, No.1 (Autumn 1997), p.28.
138. Quoted by Roberts, To all Generations, (Grand Rapids: Bible Way, 1981),
p.138.
139. A number of writers date the modern period as the precise 200 year span
between 1789 and 1989, that is, between the French Revolution and the collapse
of Communism. However, the ideas that lay behind and define the modern pe-
riod were in full sway before 1789. The French Revolution was the political mani-
festation of philosophies that had already taken hold in people’s minds.
140. Descartes’ leading work was Discourse on Method, published in 1637. Later
we will take up the implications of his statement for the epistemology of the mod-
ern period.
141. Allen, Christian Belief in a Post Modern World, p.2, quoting from E. E. Evan
Pritchard, Theories of Primitive Religion, (Oxford; At the Clarendon Press, 1965),
p.100.
142. The most consistent attempt to apply the rationalistic ideal is seen in Marx-
ism. Believing that religion was the “opiate of the people” Marxists sought to elimi-
nate religion with a vengeance. They replaced individualism with an enforced
collectivism by abolishing private property and either oppressing or eliminating
Notes 291
property owning classes and native cultures.

143. Someone has observed; “Those who marry themselves to the ideas of this
generation become widows in the next.” This has certainly been true of liberal
theology. Liberalism has identified itself with each new movement in modern
thought only to find itself left behind as the modern world has rapidly moved on.
Examples of this include the liberal alliance with science, existentialism, marxism,
feminism, the sexual revolution and psychoanalysis.
144. Hauerwas & Willimon, Resident Aliens, p.50, quoting Alasdair MacIntyre,
The Religious Significance of Atheism, (New York: Columbia Press, 1969), p.24.
145. Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, p.4.
146. Hauerwas & Willimon, Resident Aliens, p.98.
147. Although we use the word ‘revolutionaries’ the American Constitution was a
conservative document for its times. The separation of church and state helped to
define the roles of the church and the state more clearly and ended some of the
terrible atrocities associated with a blending of church and state (e.g. seventeenth
century England). The framers of the Constitution certainly did not envisage a
secular state as is the case today.
148. Bruce Patrick, “Introduction: Envisioning Kiwi Church,” New Vision New Zea-
land, Vol.II, Bruce Patrick, ed., (Auckland, Vision New Zealand, 1997), pp.25-26.
149. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, Christian Apologetics in a
Postmodern World, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995), p.12.
150. Michael Novak, “Awakening from Nihilism,” The Templeton Prize Address,
First Things (Aug/Sep 1994), pp.18-19.
151. Hauerwas & Willimon, Resident Aliens, p.50.
152. Thomas Oden, “The Death of Modernity,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism,
David S. Dockery, ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), pp.30-31.
153. Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, p.6.
154. Ibid., p.17.
156. James E. Miller, Myrtle J Jones and Helen McDonnell, eds., Three Centuries
of English Literature: 1625-1900, (Glenview: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1973).
158. Albert Camus, The Plague, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1948), p.237.
159. Ibid., p.136.
160. Mike Regele and Mark Schulz, Death of the Church, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan,1995), p.88.
161. Ibid.
162. Murray Robertson, “NZ as a Mission Field: The Paradigm Shift,” The Vision
New Zealand Congress 1993, pp.46-48.
292 Feed My Sheep
163. Brian Carrell, “Understanding our Western World Today, Part 2: The church
beyond Christendom,” Affirm, Vol.5, No.1, (Autumn 1997), p.28.
164. Oden, “The Death of Modernity,” p.25.
165. Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds, p.103.
166. Ibid., p.105.
167. Dockery, The Challenge of Postmodernism, p.11.
168. Ibid., p.105.
169. Oden, “The Death of Modernity,” p.26.
PART II: Chapter 2 - The Influence of Christianity in New Zealand
171. Peter Lineham, New Zealand Religious History, Study Guide One, (Palmerston
North: Massey University, Department of History, 1998), p.76.
172. Among the many books and articles describing this period is, William Williams,
Christianity Among the New Zealanders, (London: Seely, Jackson and Halliday,
1867). This was reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust in 1989.
173. Brian Carrell, “Understanding our Western World Today, Part 2: The church
beyond Christendom,” Affirm, Vol.5, No.1 (Autumn 1997), p.29.
174. Now ‘secular’ has come to mean non-religious. Some interpret ‘secular’ to
refer to a non-religious education system but this is a misinterpretation of its origi-
nal intent.
175. Allan K. Davidson and Peter J. Lineham, Transplanted Christianity, Third
Edition (Palmerston North: Massey University Department of History, 1987), p.85.
176. Gordon Campbell, “Church v State”, in the Listener (August 29, 1998), p.30.
177. Michael Blain, “Decade of Evangelism: The Secularisation of New Zealand
Society” (Unpublished Paper), p.3.
178. W. P. Morrell, The Anglican Church in New Zealand (Dunedin: Anglican Church
of the Province of New Zealand, 1973), p.26.
179. Michael Hill, “The Social Context Of New Zealand Religion: ‘Straight’ or
‘Narrow’?” in Religion and New Zealand’s Future, The Seventh Auckland Reli-
gious Studies Colloquium, Kevin J. Shape, ed., (Palmerston North, 1982), p.23.
180. Blain, “Decade of Evangelism: The Secularisation of New Zealand Society,”
p.4.
181. Cited in Davidson and Lineham, Transplanted Christianity, pp.95-96.
182. S. Eldred-Grigg, A Southern Gentry, (Wellington: Reed, 1980), pp.82-83.
183. Ibid., p.81.
184. Ibid., p.82.
185. Hill, “The Social Context of New Zealand Religion,” p.24.
186. Davidson and Lineham, Transplanted Christianity, p.20.
187. Ibid., p.65.
Notes 293
188. Neil N. Benfell, Bishop Selwyn and New Zealand Education, Occasional
Papers No.1, (Waikato: Institute for Educational Research), p.5.
189. Morrell, The Anglican Church in New Zealand, pp.36-40.
190. Ibid., p.117.
191. Ibid., p.138, quoting from the Church Gazette (April 1911).
192. Hans Mol, “Religion and Churches,” in Tasman Relations, New Zealand and
Australia: 1788-1988, Keith Sinclair, ed. (Auckland: University Press, 1987), p.267.
Statistics from Davidson and Lineham, Transplanted Christianity, p.177.
193. Lineham, New Zealand Religious History, Study Guide One, p.80.
194. Davidson and Lineham, Transplanted Christianity, p.110.
195. Quoted in John Dickson, The History of New Zealand Presbyterian Church,
(Dunedin: New Zealand Bible, Tract and Book Society, 1899), p.297.
196. Rev. R. S. Miller, The Evangelical Presbyterian, Vol.XIV, p.737, quoted in G.
I. Williamson, Our Reformed Faith (Auckland: 1965), p.30.
197. Allan Davidson writing in Dennis McEldowney, ed., Presbyterians in Aotearoa
(1840-1990) (Wellington: The Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, 1990), p.106.
198. Ibid.
199. P. B. Fraser was the minister at the Presbyterian Church at Lovell’s Flat in the
Clutha presbytery.
200. McEldowney, Presbyterians in Aotearoa, p.106.
201. Outlook (2 April 1966).
202. J. Veitch writing in McEldowney, Presbyterians in Aotearoa, p.154.
203. Ibid., p.154.
204. Quoted from the Assembly speeches by G. I. Williamson, “I Saw It Happen,”
Trowel and Sword (December 1967), p.22.
205. Ibid., p.154.
206. The music was composed by John Joseph Woods.
207. Brown, “Religion in New Zealand: Past, Present and Future,” in Religion and
New Zealand’s Future, The Seventh Auckland Religious Studies Colloquium, Kevin
J. Shape, ed., (Palmerston North, 1982), pp.15-22.
208. Brian Carrell, “Breaking through the Barriers to Faith Today,” in Crawshaw
& Kirkland, New Zealand Made, pp.65-66.
209. Patrick, New Vision New Zealand, Vol.II, p.23.
210. The motto of Medbury School in Christchurch.
211. Quoted by Brian Colless and Peter Donovan, eds., Religion in New Zealand
Society (Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 1980), p.27, from W. H. Oliver, The
Habit of Establishment, Comment 12:4-5, 1962.
212. Carrell, “Breaking Through the Barriers of Faith Today,” pp.68-69.
213. Murray Robertson speaking at the 1993 Vision New Zealand Congress.
294 Feed My Sheep
214. Brown, “Religion in New Zealand”, p.16.

215. This could be seen as another evidence of New Zealanders’ lack of interest in
religion. Ian Breward, “The Protestant Contribution,” in Religion in New Zealand
Society, pp.67-80.
PART II: Chapter 3 - The Secularism of NZ Society
216. Mol, “Religion and Churches,” p.263.
217. Wells, No Place for Truth, p.80.
218. Ruth Smithies, “Gospel and Culture,” in The Vision NZ Congress, Bruce
Patrick, ed., (Auckland: Vision New Zealand, 1997), p.99.
219. Quoted by Blain, “Decade of Evangelism: The Secularisation of New Zea-
land Society,” p.2.
221. Ibid., p.7.
222. Os Guinness, The Gravedigger File (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983),
p.74. Chapter 4, “The Private-Zoo Factor,” is an excellent discussion of privatisa-
tion. See also the insights of Leslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks – The
Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986),
pp.19-20.
223. Ibid., p.81.
224. Alan J. Roxburgh, Reaching a New Generation: Strategies for Tomorrow’s
Church (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993), p.46.
225. Ibid., p.81, quoting Theodore Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends (New York:
Doubleday, 1973), p.449.
226. Hill, “The Social Context of New Zealand Religion,” p.43.
227. A study in 1982 indicated that the average age for Presbyterian communi-
cant members was 55 and for Methodists 55.1 with over two-thirds of the mem-
bership in both churches being female. Alan K Davidson, Christianity in Aotearoa
– A History of Church and Society in New Zealand (Wellington: Education for
Ministry, 1991), p.177.
228. Patrick, New Vision New Zealand, Vol II, pp.23-24.
229. Mol, “Religion and Churches,” p.274.
230. Quoted in New Vision New Zealand, Vol II (1997), Bruce Patrick, ed., p.23.
231. Jane Simpson, “The forgotten role of religion in the drive for NZ women’s
rights,” The Press (Monday, 19 September 1994), p.11.
232. Davidson, Christianity in Aotearoa, p.176, quoting S. Crosbie, “Why Hast
Thou Forsaken Me?” in The Dominion Sunday Times (1 May, 1988).
233. Brian Carrell, “Addressing a Secular Society,” The Vision New Zealand Con-
gress, 1993, p.75.
234. Carrell, Moving Between Times, p.130.
Notes 295
235. Patrick, New Vision New Zealand, Vol II, p.21.

236. Julia Stuart and Mark Toomer, “Looking at the Media,” in New Vision New
Zealand, Vol II, p.301.
237. Ibid., pp.294-295.
239. Quoted in Envoy, Vol.11, No.1 (March 1999), from Evening Post (12 March
1999), examining a submission by the Churches Broadcasting Commission to a
parliamentary committee considering the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No.2).
240. The Waikanae Declaration 1997, The Vision NZ Congress 1997, p.18.
242. Harold Turner, “The Gospel’s Mission to Culture in New Zealand,” in New
Zealand Made, p.96.
243. Rosemary McLeod, “They’re only doing it to offend,” in The Press (26 March
1998).
244. “The Invasion Has Begun,” Time (8 July 1996).
245. Hans Petrovic, Film Reviews, The Press (14 November 1998), p.35.
246. Paul Little, “Soul charge schools – Education with spirit,” Listener (11 April
1998), p.7.
247. “Faith and Healing,” Time (24 June 1996).
248. Ibid.
250. quoted in ibid., p.202.
252. Turner, “The Gospel’s Mission to Culture in New Zealand,” p.93.
253. The Press (28 November 1995).
PART II: Chapter 4 - Loss of Truth in NZ Society
254. Christian Research Journal, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 1996), p.35.
255. Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be, pp.32-33.
256. Regele, Death of the Church, p.63.
257. Stanley Grenz, “Star Trek and the Next Generation,” in The Challenge of
Postmodernism, p.92.
258. Carson, The Gagging of God, pp.60-64.
259. Grenz, “Star Trek and the Next Generation,” p.95.
260. Ibid.
262. Carson, The Gagging of God, p.67.
263. Ibid., p.70.
264. Ibid., pp.21-22.
265. Ibid., pp.71, 77.
296 Feed My Sheep
266. Middleton and Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than It Used To Be, p.147, quoting
Walter Truett Anderson, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be (San Francisco: Harper
and Row, 1990), p.183.
267. Philip Sampson, “The Rise of Postmodernity,” in Faith and Modernity, Philip
Sampson, Vinay Samuel, Chris Sugden, eds., (Oxford: Regnum Books, 1994),
p.37.
268. There is, of course, variation among postmodernists as to their epistemology.
Some take a radical position and believe that there is no basis for truth – every-
thing is relative. Others apply the rational methodology of modernity to the com-
peting truth stories to see whether one surpasses the other “as a moral foundation
and framework for positive human relationships.” Regele, Death of the Church,
p.78.
269. Gary Phillips, “Religious Pluralism in a Postmodern World,” Dockery, ed.,
The Challenge of Postmodernism, p.255.
270. Ibid., p.68.
271. Sampson, “The Rise of Postmodernity”, p.37.
272. Postman, Amusing Ourselves To Death, p.107, quoting Robert MacNeil, “Is
Television Shortening our Attention Span?” New York University Education Quar-
terly, 14:2 (Winter, 1983) p.2.
273. Ibid., p.108, quoting MacNeil, p.4.
275. Middleton and Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than It Used To Be, p.36.
276. McGrath, Evangelicalism and The Future of Christianity, p.103.
277. Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat minds, p.147.
278. Michael Novak, “Awakening From Nihilism,” First Things (August/Septem-
ber 1994), p.20.
279. Brian Carrell, “Reaching out to the Ninety-Nine,” The 1995 Stubbs Memo-
rial Sermon.
280. “‘Ideologues’ capture NZ Education,” The Press (1 December 1997), p.8.
281. Wells, No Place For Truth, p.95.
282. Ibid., p.112.
283. Leadership magazine is a popular journal designed for clergy that was launched
by Christianity Today in 1980. Ibid., pp.113-114.
285. Four books worth reading on this subject are J. C. Ryle, Holiness, (Cam-
bridge: James Clarke and Co., 1956), Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership,
(Bromley: Marshall Pickering, 1967), Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness, (Car-
lisle: Patternoster, 1985) and The Practice of Godliness (Singapore: NavPress,
1983).
Notes 297

288. Ibid., p.23
289. Ibid., p.29.
290. Ibid., pp.32, 38.
291. Ibid., p.48.
293. Patrick, New Vision New Zealand, Vol.II, p.21.
295. Salvation and Hope in the New Zealand of the 1990s, Ephesus Series No.5
(Wellington: The Department of Communication, Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa
New Zealand), p.22.
296. Ibid., p.23.
297. Philip Matthews, “Searching for Jesus at Christmas” in Listener (25 Decem-
ber 1999), p.20.
PART II: Chapter 5 - Pluralism in NZ Society
299. Guinness, The Gravedigger File, p.98.
300. Carson, The Gagging of God, p.13. Carson describes this type of pluralism as
‘empirical pluralism’.
302. Ibid., p.51.
303. Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be, p.42.
304. Regele, Death of the Church, pp.68-69.
306. Matthews, “Searching for Jesus at Christmas,” p.18.
307. Carson, The Gagging of God, pp.18-19. Carson makes a further distinction
between ‘cherished pluralism’ and ‘philosophical pluralism’.
308. Gary Phillips, “Religious Pluralism in a Postmodern World,” Dockery, ed.,
The Challenge of Postmodernism, p.261.
309. Paul Windsor, “Kiwi Kulture: Towards a Definition,” in New Zealand Made,
p.59.
310. Veith, Postmodern Times, pp.195-196
311. Christian Research Journal, p.36.
313. Lance Morrow, “A Nation Of Finger Points,” Time (12 August 1991), pp.15-
16.
314. Agnes-Mary Brooke, “Why do we let the barely couth set the standard for
manners,” The Press (4 June 1997), p.11.
298 Feed My Sheep
315. D. A. Carson, When Jesus Confronts the World (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1987), p.134.
316. Morrow, “A Nation Of Finger Pointers,” p.15.
317. “Wrestling Over Right,” Time (7 April, 1997), p.56.
319. Josef Joffe, “The First Postmodern President”, Essay, Time (14 October 1996),
p.76.
320. Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be, p.13.
323. Ibid., p.106.
324. Ibid., p.107.
325. Matthews, “Searching for Jesus at Christmas,” p.18.
326. Gordon Miller, Christian Leadership Letter, Issue 143 (September/October
1996), World Vision of New Zealand.
327. Cited by Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds, pp.52-53.
329. For an example of this see ibid., footnote, p.263.
330. Blain, “The Secularisation of New Zealand Society,” p.6.
PART II: Chapter 6 - The Fragmentation of NZ Society
331. Smithies, “Gospel and Culture,” p.99.
332. Roxburgh, Reaching a New Generation, p.56.
334. “The News Wars,” Time (21 October 1996), p.54.
335. Miles Fairburn, The Ideal Society and Its Enemies: The Foundations of Modern
New Zealand Society 1850-1900 (Auckland: University Press, 1989), pp.11-12.
336. Mike Riddell, “The Making of Kiwi Identity,” in Church and Society, p.35,
quoting Neil Darragh, “The Experience of Being Pakeha,” (unpublished paper,
May 1991), p.5.
337. Riddell, “The Making of Kiwi Identity,” quoting from Jock Phillips, A Man’s
Country, The Image of the Pakeha Male (Auckland: Penguin, 1987).
338. Margo White, “Wizards of Id,” Listener (30 May 1998), p.34.
339. Denis Welch, “The Manners Report,” Listener (3 October 1998), p.34.
343. Jesse Birnbaum, “Crybabies: Eternal Victims,” Time (12 August 1991), pp.16-
17.
Notes 299
345. Birnbaum, “Crybabies: Eternal Victims,” p.17.

346. Yet we should remember that our Lord has called us to be faithful, not to be
fulfilled. Final and complete fulfilment will come in heaven, not on earth. Pritchard,
Willow Creek Seeker Services, p.256. For a biblical perspective on the topic of
fulfilment Pritchard directs readers to John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Reli-
gion, II, iv, 6.
348. Veith describes this as the “ghettoization of Christianity.” Ibid., p.148.
349. Ibid., p.144.
350. Ibid., p.188.
354. Mark Toomer, “Serving the Whole Church,” Christian News, Issue 3 (De-
cember 1998), p.7.
356. Strobe Talbott, Time (20 July 1992), p.50.
358. Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than It Use To Be, p.190.
PART II: Chapter 7 - Relativism in NZ Society
359. Ibid., pp.65-67.
360. For further development of this point see Alasdair MacIntyre’s books, After
Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London: Duckworth, 1981) and Whose Justice?
Which Rationality? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988).
361. Regele, Death of the Church, pp.88-89.
362. Gordon McLaughlan, New Zealand Herald (12 November 1988), Section 2,
p.3.
363. The Press (12 April 1997).
364. Paul Archbald, Bulletin of the Reformed Church of Masterton (27 April 1997).
365. Denis Welch, “Clever Devils,” Listener (10 January 1998), p.32.
366. Bruce Ansley, “That Old-School Religion,” Listener (11 April 1998), p.24.
367. Peter Luke, “A Question Of Responsibility,” The Press (31 October 1998),
p.11.
PART II: Chapter 8 - Consumerism and Loss of Hope in NZ Society
369. Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders (London: Penguin, 1957).
370. Carrell, Moving Between Times, pp.108, 116.
371. Smithies, “Gospel and Culture,” p.99.
300 Feed My Sheep
373. “Las Vegas, USA,” Time (10 January 1994), p.40.

374. Ibid., p.41.
375. Ibid., p.45.
376. Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be, p.43, Quoting
Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967), p.138.
377. Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, p.124.
378. Ibid., p.142.
380. Health Ministry statistics, Listener (28 January 1995).
381. David van Biema, “Does Heaven Exist?”, Time (24 March 1997), p.47.
PART III: Introduction
382. Brian Smith, “Christianity: Learning a Second Language,” New Zealand Made,
p.48.
383. Turner, “The Gospel’s Mission to Culture in New Zealand,” p.95
384. Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, p.20.
385. Berger, Facing up to Modernity, pp.232-233.
386. “New Zealand as a Mission Field: The Paradigm Shift,” The Vision New
Zealand Congress, 1993, p.53.
388. Carrell, “Reaching out to the Ninety-Nine,” The 1995 Stubs Memorial Ser-
mon.
389. Carrell, “Addressing a Secular Society,” p.79.
390. Bruce Patrick, Foreword, The Vision New Zealand Congress, 1993, p.7.
PART III: Chapter 1 - Preach the Reality of God
391. The title of a book by Francis Schaeffer (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1972).
392. True Spirituality is the title of another book by Francis Schaeffer (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1972).
393. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Lectures To My Students (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1954), p.53.
394. R. C. Sproul, “The Object of Contemporary Relevance,” in Power Religion,
The Selling out of the Evangelical Church, Michael S. Horton, ed., (Praetoria:
Moody Press, 1992), p.324.
395. Peter Jensen, “The Teacher as Theologian in Theological Education,” Re-
formed Theological Review, 50 (1991), p.83.
397. John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1990), p.11.
398. Ibid., p.20.
Notes 301
399. Marva J. Dawn develops the implications of a God centred worship in her
useful book, Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995).
400. In Psalm 78:1-8 Asaph calls on the people of God to teach their children
what God has done so that succeeding generations would come to know them;
“Then they would put their trust in God and would not forget his deeds but would
keep his commands.” (v.7).
401. Kuyper’s views on the sovereignty of God and the kingdom of Christ are
developed in his fine book, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1931).
PART III: Chapter 2 - Preach the Truth of the Bible
404. Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of biblical interpretation. Three
useful books to consult are: Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read the
Bible For All Its Worth, (London: Scripture Union, 1993), Dan McCartney and
Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand, (Wheaton: Bridgepoint, 1994), and
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1970).
405. Regele, The Death of the Church, p.205.
406. Wells, No Place for Truth, pp.259-260.
407. Ibid., p.264.
409. The Heidelberg Catechism, Question and Answer 21.
411. Ibid., p.509.
412. Those wishing to read a Biblical critique of these practices should consult
Horton, Power Religion, chapters 3, 4, and 5; and John H. Armstrong, ed., The
Coming Evangelical Crisis (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996).
413. Berger, Facing up to Modernity, p.236.
414. Ibid., p.237.
416. Ibid., p.150.
417. Rick Gosnell, “Proclamation and the Postmodernist,” in The Challenge of
Postmodernism, p.386.
419. The full statement reads as follows: “an endorsement of the classic frame-
work curriculum (biblical studies, theology, church history) as long as it is done
with a genuine mission orientation and in the context of a growing and authentic
302 Feed My Sheep
personal spirituality complemented by a development in ministry/mission skills,

particularly those associated with leadership.” “Consults – a summary of findings”
(1998), p.15.
420. Ibid., p.12.
421. Ibid.
423. James Emery White, “Evangelism in a Postmodern World,” in The Chal-
lenge of Postmodernism, pp.365-366.
424. Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (London: Hodder and
425. C. H. Spurgeon, The Early Years (first published in 1897-1900; this edition,
London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), p.388.
PART III: Chapter 3 - Preach the Uniqueness of Jesus as Lord
426. Carson, The Gagging of God, p.95, quoting from Max A. C. Warren, I Be-
lieve in the Great Commission (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1976), pp.150-
151.
428. Ibid., p.279.
429. Wells writes: “The transition, then, from the way in which biblical authors
thought about their world, with all its religious pluralism, to how we should think
about ours, with all its competing religious claims, is shorter, less complex, and
easier than it has been in centuries. Indeed, it involves no transition at all, despite
our modernity, for religiously our world looks remarkably like theirs.” Wells, No
Place For Truth, p.264.
430. Ibid., p.263.
432. Ibid., p.421.
435. The Belgic Confession, Article 29.
436. Gordon Miller, Christian Leadership Letter, Issue 143 (September/October
1996).
PART III: Chapter 5 - Preach the Absolutes of God’s Law
437. Those wishing to consider further the challenges that pluralism offers to edu-
cation should consult Carson, The Gagging of God, pp.389-397.
438. The most comprehensive explanation and defence of this position is by Greg
L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley: The Craig Press, 1979).
439. J. A. Haverland, “Theonomy: What Have We Learnt?” in Trust and Obey, D.
G. Vanderpyl, ed., (Silverstream: National Publishing Committee, Reformed
Notes 303
Churches of New Zealand, 1994). p.476.

440. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, p.39.
441. Westminster Confession of Faith, IXX iv.
442. “Report on Theonomy” to the 1989 Synod of the Reformed Churches of
New Zealand, Acts of Synod, Report 1, section 4-4.
445. The third part of the Heidelberg Catechism is entitled “Man’s Gratitude”. The
opening question and answer of this section explain that a Christian must “do
good because Christ by his Spirit is also renewing us to be like himself, so that in
all our living we may show that we are thankful to God for all he has done for us,
and so that he may be praised through us.” Question and Answer 86.
446. Ted Tripp gives an excellent explanation of this in a fine book on raising
children, Shepherding a Child’s Heart, (Wapwallopen: Shepherd Press, 1995).
PART III: Chapter 6 - Preach Contentment and Hope in Christ
447. This same point is expressed in Psalm 39:6, “Man is a mere phantom as he
goes to and fro: He bustles about, but only in vain; he heaps up wealth, not
knowing who will get it.”
449. Ibid., p.170.
450. Pritchard, Willow Creek Seeker Services, pp.252-257.
451. Ibid., p.256.
452. Gordon Miller, Reflections Newsletter, No.2 (Nov/Dec 1997; Auckland: World
Vision).
453. The answer to the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “What
is the chief end of man?”
454. “Heaven and earth” is a phrase describing the entire universe, just as the
Psalms describe God as the “Maker of heaven and earth” meaning everything in
all creation (Psalm 115:15, 121:2, 124:8).
455. Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979), p.274.
456. David van Biema, “Does Heaven Exist?” Time (24 March 1997), pp.47, 51.
457. Ibid., pp.46-47.
458. Ibid., p.51.
459. William Shakespeare, Macbeth.
460. The Belgic Confession, Article 13.
CONCLUSION
461. A comment in a personal interview.
462. Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress, p.40.
304 Feed My Sheep
305
SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
306 Feed My Sheep
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS AND ARTICLES ON PREACHING
Adams, Jay E. Preaching with Purpose. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1982.
Bailey, Ivor. Prate, Prattle or Preach. Melbourne: Joint Board of Christian
Education, 1974.
Baxter, Richard. The Reformed Pastor. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974.
“Belgic Confession” in Forms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches of New
Zealand. Wellington: National Publishing Committee of the Reformed Churches of
New Zealand, 1994.
Brown, Steve; Haddon Robinson; and William Willimon. A Voice in the
Wilderness: Clear Preaching in a Complicated World. Portland: Multnomah, 1993.
Bunyan, John. The Pilgrims’s Progress: An Outlined Study Manual with
Accurate Text Revision by Barry E Horner. North Brunswick: Horner, 1997.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion in John T McNeill, ed., The
Library of Christian Classics. 26 Vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960
(Vols. XX & XXI).
Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centred Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.
Colquhoun, Frank. Christ’s Ambassadors: The Priority of Preaching. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.
Dallimore, Arnold. Spurgeon: A new biography. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1985.
Dawn, Marva J. Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.
Duduit, Michael, ed. Handbook of Contemporary Preaching. Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1992.
Edwards, Brian H. Shall we Dance. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1984.
Frame, John M. Worship in Spirit and Truth. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1996.
Bibliography 307
Friedrich, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol III. Edited
by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.
Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1970.
Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting
and Preaching Biblical Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1988.
“Heidelberg Catechism” in Forms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches
of New Zealand. Wellington: National Publishing Committee of the Reformed
Churches of New Zealand, 1994.
Hybels, Bill; Briscoe, Stuart; and Robinson, Haddon. Mastering Contemporary
Preaching. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989.
Kuiper, R. B. The Church in History. Grand Rapids: The National Union of
Christian Schools, 1951.
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931.
Larson, B. Wind and Fire. Waco: Word Books, 1984.
Lewis, Peter. The Genius of Puritanism. Haywards Heath: Carey Publications,
1977.
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors.
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987.
. Preaching and Preachers. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971.
Logan, Samuel T., ed. Preaching: The Preacher and Preaching in the Twentieth
Century. Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1986.
Loscalzo, Craig A. Preaching Sermons that Connect: Effective Communication
Through Identification. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.
Marcel, Pierre Ch. The Relevance of Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1963.
McArthur, John. Ashamed of the Gospel. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.
Morgan, Campbell. Preaching. London: Oliphants Ltd., 1964.
Murray, Iain. Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography. Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 1987.
308 Feed My Sheep
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2, The New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Newton, Ronald G. “The Organ and the Organist in Reformed Worship, Part
1,” Faith in Focus. March 1998, p.6.
Old, Hughes Oliphant. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the
Worship of the Christian Church. Vols. 1 & 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1998.
Packer, J. I. A Quest For Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life.
Wheaton: Crossway, 1990.
. Beyond the Battle for the Bible. Westchester: Cornerstone Books,
1980.
Piper, John. The Supremacy of God in Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1990.
Pritchard, G. A. Willow Creek Seeker Services: Evaluating a New Way of
Doing Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996.
Roberts. To all Generations. Grand Rapids: Bible Way, 1981.
Robinson, Haddon W. Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of
Expository Messages. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.
Runia, Klaas. The Sermon Under Attack. Exeter: Paternoster, 1983.
Ryle, J. C. Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century. 1885. Reprinted by
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1978.
Spurgeon, C. H. Lectures To My Students. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954.
. The Early Years. First published in 1897-1900; this edition,
London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962.
Stewart, James. Preaching. London: English University Press Ltd, 1946.
Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth
Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
. The Preachers Portrait: Some New Testament Word Studies. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.
Taylor, David Bentley. Augustine: Wayward Genius. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1980.
Bibliography 309
“Westminster Confession of Faith” in Forms and Confessions of the Reformed

Churches of New Zealand. Wellington: National Publishing Committee of the
Reformed Churches of New Zealand, 1994.
Windsor, Paul. Consults. Auckland: Carey Baptist College, 29 October 1998.
BOOKS ON MODERNITY AND POSTMODERNITY
Allen, Diogenes. Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, The Full Wealth of

Conviction. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989.
Armstrong, John H., ed. The Coming Evangelical Crisis. Chicago: Moody Press,
1996.
Bahnsen, Greg L. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Nutley: The Craig Press, 1979.
Berger, Peter L. Facing Up To Modernity. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
Bloesch, Donald G. Crumbling Foundations: Death and Rebirth in an Age of
Upheaval. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984.
Carrell, Brian. Moving Between Times – Modernity and Postmodernity: A
Christian View. Auckland: The Deepsight Trust, 1998.
Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Chandler, Russell. Racing Toward 2001: The Forces Shaping America’s
Religious Future. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Colson, Charles. The God of Stones and Spiders: Letters to a Church in Exile.
Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990.
Dockery, David S., ed. The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical
Engagement. Wheaton: Baker Books, 1995.
Eden, Martyn; and David F. Wells, eds. The Gospel in the Modern World: A
Tribute to John Stott. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.
Flett, John, ed. Collision Crossroads. Auckland: The Deepsight Trust, 1998.
Grenz, S. J. A Primer on Post Modernism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Guinness, Os. No God But God: Breaking with the Idols of Our Age. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1992.
310 Feed My Sheep
Guinness, Os. Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What
To Do About It. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.
. Dining with the Devil: The Mega-Church Flirts With Modernity.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.
. The Gravedigger File. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983.
Hauerwas, Stanley; and William Willimon. Resident Aliens, Life in the Christian
Colony. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.
Horton, Michael Scott, ed. Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical
Church. Praetoria: Moody Press, 1992.
Hughes, R. Kent; John MacArthur; R. C. Sproul; Michael S. Horton; and Albert
Mohler Jr. The Coming Evangelical Crisis. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.
Keyes, Dick. True Heroism: In a World of Celebrity Counterfeits. Colorado
Springs: NavPress, 1995.
McGrath, Alister. Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1988.
. Bridge-Building: Communicating Christianity Effectively. Leicester:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.
Middleton, Richard J.; and Brian J Walsh. Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be:
Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.
Myers, Kenneth A. All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians &
Popular Culture. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1989.
Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Leicester: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1994.
Noll, Mark A.; and David F. Wells, eds. Christian Faith and Practice in the
Modern World: Theology from an Evangelical Point of View. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988.
Phillips, Timothy R.; and Dennis L. Okholm, eds. Christian Apologetics in the
Postmodern World. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.
Bibliography 311
Plantinga, Cornelius Jr. Not the Way it’s Supposed to be: A Breviary of Sin.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. London: Methuen, 1985.
Regele, Mark; with Mark Schulz. Death of the Church. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1995.
Roxburgh, Alan J. Reaching a New Generation: Strategies for Tomorrow’s
Church. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993.
Sampson, Philip; Vinay Samuel; and Chris Sugden, eds. Faith and Modernity.
Oxford: Regnum Books, 1994.
Schaeffer, Francis. He Is There and He Is Not Silent. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1972.
. How Then Should We Live? Old Tappan: Fleming H Revell Co.,
1976.
. The God Who Is There. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1968.
. True Spirituality. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1972.
Schlossberg, Herbert. Idols for Destruction: The Conflict of Christian Faith and
American Culture. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990.
Schlossberg, Herbert; and Marvin Olasky. Turning Point: A Christian Worldview
Declaration. Westchester: Crossway Books, 1987.
Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door. Maddison: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976.
Van Til, Cornelius. Paul At Athens. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Veith, Gene Edward Jr. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary
Thought and Culture. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994.
Wells, David F. No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical
Theology? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
. God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading
Dreams. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
312 Feed My Sheep
ARTICLES ON MODERNITY AND POSTMODERNITY
Blain, Michael. “Decade of Evangelism: The Secularisation of New Zealand

Society.” (unpublished paper).
Carrell, Brian. “Reaching out to the Ninety Nine.” The 1995 Stubbs Memorial
Sermon.
. “Understanding our Western World Today, Part 2, The Church
Beyond Christendom.” Affirm. Autumn 1997, pp. 27-30.
Christian Research Journal, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 1996).
Corney, Peter. “Have You Got the Right Address? Post-Modernism and the
Gospel.” GRID. Spring 1995.
Edgar, William. “No News is Good News: Modernity, the Postmodern, and
Apologetics.” Westminster Theological Journal. Fall 1995, pp.359ff.
Finger, Thomas. “Modernity, Postmodernity – What in the World are They?”
Transformation. October/December 1993, pp.20-26.
Grenz, Stanley J. “Star Trek and the Next Generation: Postmodernism and the
Future of Evangelical Theology.” CRUX. March 1994, pp.22-28.
Hughes, Philip. “Christian Faith in a Postmodern Age.” Zadok Paper. July
1995, pp.1-11.
Leffel, Jim; and Dennis McCallum. “The Post-modern challenge: Facing the
Spirit of the Age.” Christian Research Journal. Fall 1996.
Morrow, Lance. “A Nation of Finger Pointers.” Time. 12 August 1991.
Novak, Michael. “Awakening from Nihilism.” The Templeton Prize Address.
First Things. August/September 1994, pp.18-22.
Talbott, Strobe, “The Birth of a Global Nation.” Time. 20 July 1992, pp.50-51.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Exploring the World; Following the Word: The Credibility
of Evangelical Theology in an Incredulous Age.” Trinity Journal. 1995, pp.3-27.
Zoglin, Richard, “The News Wars.” Time. 21 October 1996.
Bibliography 313
BOOKS ON NEW ZEALAND
Barker, Lady. Station Life in New Zealand. Auckland: Golden Press Pty Ltd,
1883/1973.
Colless, Brian; and Peter Donovan, eds. Religion in New Zealand Society.
Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 1980.
Crawshaw, John; and Wayne Kirkland, eds. New Zealand Made: Perspectives
on Mission in Aotearoa. Wellington: Signpost Communications, 1994.
Davidson, Allan K. Christianity in Aotearoa: A History of Church and Society in
New Zealand. Wellington: Education for Ministry, 1991.
Davidson, Allan K.; and Peter J. Lineham. Transplanted Christianity.
Palmerston North: Massey University Department of History, 1987.
Dickson, Rev. John. History of NZ Presbyterian Church. Dunedin: NZ Bible
Tract and Book Society, 1899.
Elder, J. R. The History of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand.
Christchurch: Presbyterian Bookroom, 1940.
Lineham, Peter J. New Zealand Religious History. Study Guide One & Two.
Massey University: Department of History, 1998.
. Religious History of New Zealand: A Bibliography. Palmerston
North: Department of History, Massey University, 1993.
McEldowney, Dennis, ed. Presbyterians in Aotearoa (1840-1990). Wellington:
The Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, 1990.
Morrell, W. P. The Anglican Church In New Zealand. Dunedin: The Anglican
Church of the Province of New Zealand (Distrubted by J. McIndoe), 1973.
Mol, Hans. “Religion and Churches,” in Tasman Relations: New Zealand and
Australia 1788-1988. Edited by Keith Sinclair. Auckland: Auckland University
Press, 1987.
Patrick, Bruce, ed. Vision New Zealand Congress. Auckland: Vision New
Zealand, 1993.
. Vision NZ Congress 1997. Auckland: Vision New Zealand, 1997.
. New Vision New Zealand. Auckland: Vision New Zealand, 1997.
Pratt, Douglas, ed. “Christ and Culture: A.N.Z. Perspective.” Signpost:
314 Feed My Sheep
Theological Reflections in a NZ Context. Auckland: College Communications,

1987.
Sharp, Kevin J, ed. Religion and New Zealand’s Future: The 7th Auckland
Religious Studies Colloquium. Palmerston North: 1982.
Probing Further: Explorations in Evangelism. Wellington: Signpost
Communications, 1995.
Webster and Perry. The Religious Factor in New Zealand Society. Palmerston
North: Alpha Publications, Massey University, 1989.
Williams, William. Christianity Among the New Zealanders. 2nd Edition.
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989.
ARTICLES ON NEW ZEALAND
Benfell, Neil N. Bishop Selwyn and New Zealand Education. Occasional Papers
No.1. Waikato: Institute for Educational Research.
Langwell, Robyn, ed. “Crying in the Chapel.” North and South. October 1995.
Mahony, Kate. “Shaken, Shocked and Shamed.” Listener. 28 January 1995.
Martin, Rev. Margaret Reid. “Salvation and Hope in the New Zealand of the
1990’s.” Ephesus Series No. 5 Presybyterian Church of Aotearoa New
Zealand, November 1991.
Rae, Murray. “Chaplaincy in the Postmodern University.” Stimulus – The New
Zealand Journal of Christian Thought and Practice. February 1997, pp.7-9.
Simpson, Jane. “The Forgotten Role of Religion in the Drive for NZ Women’s
Rights.” The Press. 19 September 1994, p.11.
Turner, Harold. “The Gospel’s Mission to Culture in New Zealand.”
Journeyings. October 1991.
315
FEED MY SHEEP
John A316
Haverland Feed My Sheep
This is a book about preaching, specifically written for

the New Zealand context, but the analysis applies to
other countries in our western world. Pastors will find
this useful as it provides them with a theology of
preaching and encourages them to devote themselves
to this task. New Zealand Christians will also benefit
from this book as it outlines some important features
of our history as a nation and analyses key character-
istics of our present society, illustrating these with
historical and contemporary examples. The book
provides many practical suggestions and applications
for communicating the Christian faith in a post-
modern New Zealand context.
Feed My Sheep is a plea for preaching - for sound,

exegetical, expository preaching. It is also a plea for
relevant preaching that explains where we have come
from and where we are, and that applies the truth of
God’s Word to the situation around us today.
John A Haverland earned a BA from the University of

Canterbury and has Theological degrees from the
Reformed Theological College, Geelong; Calvin Theological
Seminary, Michigan; and Westminster Theological
Seminary, California. John grew up in Christchurch, has
pastored a church in Auckland and is presently the pastor of
the Reformed Church of Bishopdale in Christchurch. He
has served as the editor of the magazine of the Reformed
Churches of New Zealand and has given occasional lectures
at the Bible College of New Zealand in Christchurch. John
is married to Harriet and they have four children.
&Grace
Truth
Publications

Feed My Sheep

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feed My Sheep

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feed My Sheep

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEED MY

Preaching the Gospel in a Postmodern

© John A Haverland 2000

First published 2000

Grace & Truth Publicatons

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or

Cover & book design by Dafydd Hughes

Every Sunday in New Zealand the vast majority of this country’s

the promotion of pluralism. As pastors in New Zealand we are

It would be useful to begin with a definition of preaching. What are we

listeners. There are a number of parts to this definition, most of which

THE STATE OF PREACHING IN NEW ZEALAND

One summer my family and I were holidaying in Te Anau. On Sunday

worship, whether or not pew Bibles are provided. Consequently, when

THE STATE OF PREACHING GENERALLY

Poor preaching is not an isolated problem and certainly not unique to

OBJECTION: PREACHING IS OUTMODED AND INEFFECTIVE

predictable, unchallenging, irrelevant, sophomoric attempts to teach

RESPONSE 1: PREACHING IS COMMANDED

Just before his ascension Jesus commissioned his disciples, as

proclaim the message of salvation in Christ.

Word of God as it is applied by the Holy Spirit. To the world preaching

It will not return to me empty,

through God’s Spirit.

Examples of Preaching in the Scriptures

anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18f, Isaiah

Examples of preaching in church history

Throughout church history the Holy Spirit has used powerful

preached systematically through the Scriptures to thousands in the city

J. C. Ryle, a forthright Anglican Bishop of the nineteenth century,

The Puritan legacy continued to influence preaching in America into

This tradition of biblical preaching was continued on in England in the

An outstanding example of biblical expository preaching in the

RESPONSE 2: PREACHING IS EFFECTIVE

When dealing with objections to preaching it is important that we

dramatic illustration of the power of God’s Spirit when he saw a valley

acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself,

In my experience, dramas are most effective in worship when they pose a

Most of the advocates for drama base their arguments on the

OBJECTION: PREACHING HAS NO AUTHORITY

People have not only questioned the effectiveness of preaching in our

People don’t respect the Bible

Such hesitancy is the natural consequence of a loss of respect for the

background; the centre of attention is the situation of the listener. At

People don’t respect the preacher

Connected with a loss of confidence in the Bible is a loss of respect for

opportunities for learning and a method of education that encourages

People don’t respect preaching

people to either accept or reject the message.

RESPONSE: PREACHING IS AUTHORITATIVE

Over the last century conservative theologians have fought against

The authority of God’s Word

one inexhaustible theme.”72 To preach is to declare this central

The authority of the preacher

There are no quick-fix solutions that will magically polish up the

(1 Cor 4:1) He described himself and the other apostles as “servants,

Ambassador to be of realms beyond the sea,

This is how we must see ourselves – as invested with the king’s

I must recognise that if I were to return to churches that I have pastored it is

In a society which already has a poor image of the minister it is