Subjective Truth vs Objective Truth: Some Thoughts for the LDS

One of the most attractive features of the LDS church is the encouragement members get to pursue revelations. In the early days of the church, this might have been its most popular custom. However, after a short time with this arrangement, Joseph Smith recognized its dangers.

In September 1830 Joseph and Emma Smith moved from Harmony, Pennsylvania, to Fayette, New York. When they arrived, they found that some Saints were being deceived by claims of false revelations: “To our great grief, … we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive, and seeking whom he might devour. [1]

In response, Smith received a revelation that placed a limit on the revelations that might be received by members of the church.

But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church. [2] (D&C 8:2-3)

The church still encourages revelations. In fact, the church insists that if you haven’t received a revelation, you haven’t received the Holy Ghost. As Harold B. Lee taught,

Any Latter-day Saint who has been baptized and who has had hands laid upon him from those officiating, commanding him to receive the Holy Ghost, and who has not received a revelation of the spirit of the Holy Ghost, has not received the gift of the Holy Ghost to which he is entitled. [3]

But these revelations are subject to the teachings of the church. As Elder Gerald N. Lund insisted in a 1997 devotional address at BYU,

Revelation from God does not contradict gospel principles or go contrary to established Church policy and procedure.

When there is new doctrine or new procedures to come forth, you will get it in one of three ways:

a. A formal press conference will be called by the leaders of the Church, at which an official announcement will be made.

b. It will be announced through the Church News, the Ensign, or other official Church communications.

c. It will be announced in general conference by those in authority.

Otherwise, we should be very wary about accepting it, and we should not share it with others. [4]

Over many years of life and ministry in Utah, I have heard many accounts of personal revelations. One man told me about personal conversations with George Washington and Ben Franklin. Politicians tell voters they received a direct impulse from the Spirit that led them to run for office. John Hyrum Koyle received a visit from the Angel Moroni. According to Koyle’s account,

the messenger showed him in vision a massive depository of gold ore in the hills near his home. He was also told that the mine would produce financial relief, in the form of gold coins, after a future economic collapse. The sacred treasure would benefit the people by keeping alive the local economy during the financial crisis and other devastating calamities. [5]

Thus, Koyle founded a mining operation and established the Dream Mine. Other members of the church (such as the Lafferty brothers and Brian David Mitchell) have had revelations that led them to commit heinous crimes. Thankfully, this kind of “revelation” is not common among the members of the church.

The Dave Douglass Interview and Owning Your Mistakes

I listened with mixed feelings to the Dave Douglass interview on the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast. I attended Hyles-Anderson College in the 1989-90 school year, and Douglass was on staff then, though I didn’t interact with him. I loved my year at Hyles and mourned over leaving. So, when I saw the RFP advertisements for the Dave Douglass interview, I was intrigued. I had not heard that he resigned as President of Hyles-Anderson. I wondered what he might have to say about his reasons for leaving. Given that he was going public on the RFP, I assumed he would give an account of God’s work to show him the error of the ministry at Hyles.

It took Douglass about 38 minutes to get to his “grace awakening” (as the RFP called it), and thanks to a question from J.C. Groves, Douglass began to discuss his rejection of “legalism.” Of course, legalism is the driving focus of the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast, according to its mission statement.

We exist to help and encourage those whose lives have been negatively affected by fundamentalist legalism in the church and to challenge those who promote tradition over Scripture.

I wasn’t surprised to hear the discussion head to legalism. But overall, I found Douglass’ answers unsatisfactory on several levels. I understand that there might be some sensitivity to the discussion. But since the podcast aims to drive conversation, I want to join this one. I don’t object to the way the RFP handled the interview. They didn’t set out to debate Douglass, and they did ask him good questions. They have indicated that they are trying to be reasonable and recognize when people are taking steps in the right direction, and I appreciate that.

Preaching, Poetry, and the Power of Analogy

If you haven’t read the previous post, you might find it a helpful introduction to this one.

Words work because they materialize in the visible world. Assuming we know the word, we can’t detach it from its meaning. The word represents something, either visible or invisible, and we know the meaning by the word that identifies it. God made the world this way. He made the world out of words so that the world is a visible word. And this is why metaphor works. A metaphor identifies something distinct from and yet fully identified with something else. Words themselves are metaphors because the word isn’t the material thing, but when we think of the material thing, we want to know its name.

Preachers need to know this because we deal in words. We use words to communicate God’s truth, conveying our message with words. The gospel is good news, which means the gospel is words. We ought to know the power of words to effectively communicate God’s truth.

In the previous post, we offered three treasures found in words. Here, we’ll offer two more.

Treasure #4: Poetry communicates more clearly than science.

From something less true, we can learn more truth. [1]

God is immutable.

I’ll pause while you look that up. Actually, no, I won’t. We’re all preachers reading this, so we know what immutable means. Hopefully, we have taught our churches to understand and honor the immutability of God. If we have, we know that the Bible doesn’t spend much time on the topic. Hebrews 6:18 provides the singular appearance of this amazing word. If we want our people to know what it means that God is immutable, we might find it helpful to use a more familiar yet equally Biblical expression, perhaps like this:

But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. (Psalm 94:22)

The Bible tells us that God is a rock at least twenty times. Think about that. If you demand scientific accuracy for every expression, the Bible must disappoint you terribly. If I were to ask you to explain the similarities between God and a rock, you might struggle a bit. As you take your kids hiking, how often have you pointed at a rock and said, “See that, kids! God is just like that!”

But you could. You should, in fact. God identifies Himself that way. If I’m honest, I can only think of one or two qualities of a rock that resemble God – a rock is unchangeable; a great big rock is nearly immovable. But the Bible says, “God is a rock.” Not that He is every way like a rock or a rock is every way like God. But a rock depicts God’s immutability in a way we can grasp, in a way that the word “immutable” doesn’t.

If you want your kids to know that God is immutable, tell them that God is a rock. A child can grasp that.

But that isn’t true for kids only. Think of the way science expresses truth compared to poetry. Science always wants to quantify things, usually with a number. On a scale of 1-to-10, how much pain are you feeling? A 55-year-old gets a senior discount. And on a cold day, temperatures might dip into the teens or even below zero.

Now, of course, this scientific mode of expression has become familiar enough to us that we know the lingo. We may have never considered how inane the idea of “zero” degrees of temperature might be. We might wish we could store a few degrees when it is 100 outside and pull them out of the pantry when it is zero. But what about below zero? What does that even mean? If my bank balance gets below zero, I’m in trouble. Does that mean we’re in trouble when temperatures get below zero? Do they owe us something they need to repay?

The scientific or “analytical” paradigm takes itself very seriously and sometimes acts as if accuracy is more important than clarity. But the Bible doesn’t rely on the analytical paradigm as often as we might think. The Bible is much more likely to describe God as a fire, Jesus as bread or light or water, the Bible as a sword, and a contentious woman as a continual dripping on a very rainy day. The Bible doesn’t get all that technical. In fact, the scientific way of saying things is more precise and accurate, but also more abstract. If you don’t believe me, draw me a picture of a degree. Not just one – draw me fifty of them huddled together in the air surrounding your house on a warm spring afternoon. Show me what a degree looks like, and we’ll discuss how great scientific expression really is. And tell me which expression makes it more apparent that Tom Bombadil is quite old – if I tell you his age in years or if I quote Tolkien:

There’s earth under his old feet, and clay on his fingers; wisdom in his bones, and both his eyes are open.

The poetic way of saying things (imprecise but more concrete) is often the Bible way of saying things.

A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. (Proverbs 25:11)

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (I Corinthians 13:1-3)

And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. (James 3:6)

The Bible speaks this way for a simple reason: we understand it better. The concrete images used in poetic speech aren’t always the most accurate, but they express the idea in a way our minds can grasp.

How should this affect our preaching? We should recognize first that theology, like any science, uses a fair amount of jargon that the noninitiates might not recognize. You can speak of “getting saved,” the “atonement,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and the “vicarious” suffering of Christ all day long. Half your audience will have no idea what you mean.

Hey Preacher, Love the Word(s)

Carpenters work with nails and screws and lumber. Plumbers work with pipe. Electricians work with wire. Preachers work with words. They aren’t the only ones to do this, of course. Carpenters work with words, too. So do electricians, lawyers, doctors, bureaucrats, and auto mechanics. Words are the currency of culture.

But preachers particularly work with words. Words are the raw material for sermons. With words, the gospel is preached, and men repent and believe.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. (I Peter 1:23-25)

Auto mechanics study engines and tools. Doctors study the human body and medicines. Preachers must know the Word. But knowing the Word requires a knowledge of words. If you love the Word, it is only natural that you would love words. Words are your craft. Despite the inevitable sneers, you are called to be a wordsmith.

Preaching, Proof, and Binding the Conscience

The great design and intention of the office of a Christian preacher (is) to restore the throne and dominion of God in the souls of men. (Cotton Mather)

To preach is to prove, and to prove is to bind the conscience. Every sermon sets forth the certainty of the things of Scripture and calls the people to believe and do what the Bible says. Or maybe I should say that every sermon should do this. We don’t need to ask whether the preacher will bind the conscience, but how he will bind it and what truth he will preach as binding on the conscience.

But that raises a myriad of questions: What is proof? What kind of certainty do we look for? What types of proofs should we use? Do emotional proofs count? Should the church be bound by every opinion the pastor holds? Is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “beyond a shadow of a doubt?”

The Art of Punchy Preaching

The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. (Ecclesiastes 9:17)

You might not think of Jordan Peterson as an entertainer. His events involve a lecture that lasts an hour and a half to two hours. He isn’t bombastic or edgy but deeply philosophical. If you watch one of these online, you’ll notice the rapt attention that his audience gives him – so quiet, if someone scratches their head, you can hear the dandruff fall. If you wish to attend one of his events, be prepared to shell out a minimum of $65. If you want to sit up close, the price will be closer to $150. This coming Friday, you can hear him in Nashville. There are less than 1,000 seats left in the 20,000-seat Bridgestone Arena. Or you could wait until next week and attend his show at the ~6,000-seat Radio City Music Hall. You’ll pay about $112 for a seat, but you’ll need to hurry – there are about 200 seats left.

Perhaps we could dismiss this as the product of fallen man seeking a saving answer to our depravity through moralistic philosophy. Preachers might struggle to fill an arena if they gave the seats away for free. Even the mega-churches tend to draw them in with music, then slip in a short, entertaining talk that some might identify as a “sermon.”

My point is not that preachers should try to be Jordan Peterson. The man is highly skilled at walking along the cliff’s edge of godless philosophy without slipping into Biblical Christianity. I mean to point out how manifestly false it is that you can’t hold an audience’s attention unless you include lots of bling and keep the sermon to a half hour. People will listen if you have something to say.

The Science of Punchy Preaching

There is no particular advantage to being seriously unreadable. The same can be said for preachers. Don’t preach sermons nobody wants to hear. As I see it, preaching has two priorities: to faithfully proclaim the message of Scripture and to be heard by God’s people. Or, put another way, the preacher aims to provide good food which the people are glad to eat. Good food cooked well is appetizing, even if you aren’t hungry. Let the cook work her magic, and the hungry will be fed.

Topical Opinionating

I’m not opposed to topical preaching per se. I think there is a case for it. The sermons recorded in the New Testament seem more topical than expository to me. For example, on the day of Pentecost, Peter argued as his thesis that the miracle the people were witnessing was not the product of drunkenness but a fulfillment of Joel’s prophesy in Joel 2:28-32. Peter brought in Psalm 16:8-11 as a supporting witness. The Sanhedrin charged Stephen with speaking “blasphemous words against ‘this holy place’ (the Temple) and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us” (Acts 6:13-14). Stephen answered by rehearsing the whole history of Moses and the Temple with this conclusion:

Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? (Acts 7:48-50)

His conclusion patches together parts of Solomon’s dedication of the Temple (I Kings 8:27), an allusion to Psalm 11:4, Michaiah’s warning to King Jehoshaphat (I Kings 19:22), and every Old Testament passage that declares God the creator of all things (Ex 20:11; Ps 33:6-9; 50:9-12; 146:5-6; Isa 40:28; 44:24; 45:7-8,12; Jer 10:11; 32:17).

In the Pisidian Antioch synagogue (Acts 13:14-41), Paul preached that “Of this man’s (David’s) seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus” (23). As proof, he rehearsed the ministry of John the Baptist (24-25), the history of their dealings with Jesus (26-31), and showed from the Old Testament the truth of the claim that “the promise which was made unto the fathers (that “to you is the word of this salvation sent” – v. 26), God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again” (32-33). His proofs are taken from the second Psalm, the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:14-16; Psalm 89:2-4), Psalm 16:10, and the historic contrast between David (who saw corruption) and Jesus of Nazareth (who didn’t). He then repeats the warning of Habakuk 1:5, calling the Jews to repent or perish.

We could continue. Paul’s most famous sermon, which he delivered to the gathered philosophers on Mars’ Hill, includes a handful of Old Testament allusions but does not expound any particular text of Scripture.

At a minimum, New Testament sermon samples allow for the occasional topical sermon. I would point out that the sermons recorded in Acts are given in defense of the gospel, primarily to the Jews but also to the Gentiles (on Mars’ Hill). Preaching to the gathered body of Christ in the New Testament church should mainly focus on expounding the whole of Scripture, “line upon line, precept upon precept.” There is a place for “comparing Scripture with Scripture,” of course, but that should be done to give a thorough presentation of the passage.

The Danger of Allegorizing

If I were a betting man, I would give two-to-one odds on my annual salary that you’ve heard at least one sermon on David and Goliath where the preacher preached that you too can slay your giants.

David and Goliath might be the most frequently allegorized passage in the Bible. It has been used (and abused) until we almost can’t think of it any other way. I was with a group of fellow pastors a few years ago, and I commented that we tend to make Bible stories about ourselves instead of Christ or instead of seeing why God gave us that story. I gave the story of David and Goliath as a case in point. One of my fellow pastors immediately objected to the notion that the story of David and Goliath might be about Jesus. “That’s allegorizing,” he said. I asked him how it is allegorizing to make it about Jesus but not allegorizing to make it about me?

To allegorize is to interpret symbolically. When we allegorize a passage, we look for hidden spiritual meanings that transcend the text’s literal meaning. “Commentators who use allegory deserve high marks for creativity but low marks for approaching the biblical account as literature.” (Haddon Robinson, Biblical Preaching, 59)

Expository Preaching 101

The great design and intention of the office of a Christian preacher (is) to restore the throne and dominion of God in the souls of men. (Cotton Mather)

So, what exactly is expository preaching? Among Independent Baptists, expository preaching is greatly derided and ridiculed. Most consider it to be about two degrees north of dead. I often hear it treated as if every sermon were another episode in deep-sea diving. People fear they’ll run out of oxygen before they resurface. In general, expository preaching is thought to have the same value as a wet blanket – good at extinguishing whatever fire and vigor a church has left in it.

Haddon Robinson described preaching as “a living interaction involving God, the preacher, and the congregation.” He offered this working definition of expository preaching.

Expository preaching is 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 the preacher, applies to the hearers. (Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, p. 5)

Expository preaching operates on the assumption that the Bible comes from one mind and delivers one message. Every passage of Scripture is part of God’s entire message to mankind. And every passage of Scripture contributes an essential part of that message. So, when examining any passage of the Bible, expository preaching seeks to uncover and proclaim the message a loving, heavenly Father has for His children.

Things like “zeal,” “fire,” and “passion” can be faked. Many preachers function by ranting and raving and consider yelling and screaming essential elements of the sermon. Their passion buckets are full, but their sermon mostly lacks substance. They are like a dry thunderstorm on a hot summer day – full of noise but no refreshing rain.