Please support them: check out their website, like them on Facebook, pray for them, visit if you’re nearby; you might also like contact them for further information on how to support them financially.

The three debates that I’ve noticed it being used in are as follows:

1. The debate concerning the place of faith and works in the Christian life, related to the so-called “New Perspective on Paul”
2. The debate concerning God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in evangelism, related to mission strategy in the Diocese of Sydney
3. The debate concerning evangelism and good deeds in mission, related to the Lausanne Conference

Here’s how the device is used:

1. You raise the issue
2. You declare with authority that “the debate is now over”
3. You observe that nevertheless, certain people are still debating the issue

When you use this device, you are implying two things:

1. You belong to a privileged circle of people who are properly qualified to talk about the issue (i.e., in the cases I mentioned above New Testament scholars, a group of Sydney Anglicans, missiologists), and who are no longer interested in talking about the issue.
2. Those who are still debating the issue don’t belong to the privileged group. They are therefore ill-informed, or petty, and clearly not qualified to talk about the issue, and not worth listening to.

I don’t like this device, and I think it should should stop. Why?

1. It’s elitist. Just because your own circle claims to have worked out the issue, doesn’t mean that other areas of discussion about this issue are irrelevant.
2. It’s illogical. If people are still debating the issue, then the debate is not over.

BBC News – World’s oldest man Walter Breuning dies in US aged 114.

The world’s certified oldest man, whose advice to others included the observation “you’re born to die”, has passed away aged 114 in the US.

According to a computer analysis, one particular Sunday in the 1950s (the 11 April 1954, to be exact) was the most boring day in the twentieth century. The most interesting things that happened on that day were a Belgian election (yawn) and the birth of a Turkish physicist specializing in atomic microscopes and computer chips. Apart from that, nothing much else happened.

Being boring seems to be a particularly heinous crime nowadays, even amongst Christians. Of course, this isn’t true at all times and in all places. It’s hard to think of the Protestant martyrs who were burned at the stake in the mid-1500s, or Christians today in Pakistan being sentenced to death for blasphemy, being especially worried about the prospect of boredom. On the other hand, if you’re reading this, you probably belong to that portion of humanity with quite a lot of time on our hands. Time to read blogs, for example. Or play sport. Or to like things on Facebook. And since you probably spend quite a bit of time reading, playing and liking, you probably care a lot more about the ‘interest factor’ in your entertainment, your sport and your friends than, for instance, the average Protestant martyr.

So is there actually anything wrong with being boring? Is boredom just a 21st century Western problem that we all just need to ‘get over’?

On the one hand, we need to acknowledge that being boring can have terrible consequences. Thoughtful Christian parents know this all too well: there is great danger in boring your kids out of Christianity. If, for example, you teach your kids by your words and your actions that the gospel is a simple formula for a ticket to heaven (especially if your version of ‘heaven’ sounds suspiciously like an endless succession of 11 April 1954s), that the Bible is a book of morality tales to make us nice, and that the world is a nasty place that should be avoided wherever possible; if your kids perceive that you are going through the religious motions of church and sermons Sunday after Sunday, year after year, without it affecting your life, destroying your pretensions or humbling you before God—this is, indeed, perilously boring, for them and for you. And of course, this isn’t just a problem for parents and their rebellious yet perceptive teenagers, is it?

On the other hand, the desire to avoid being boring can be just as perilous. If we care too much about the problem of being boring, we can look for dangerous shortcuts to being interesting. This is a real problem for Christian teachers. Having spent a bit of time in the world of biblical scholarship, I can testify that a deep anxiety to avoid being boring fuels much of the scholarly endeavour. Biblical scholars are noticed, given praise, published and given jobs when they say new, novel and controversial things about their area of specialty (commentary readers, take note!). When biblical scholars just show how this or that part of the Bible fits into the whole counsel of God as preached down through the centuries, nobody is particularly interested. But this is a temptation for anyone involved in Bible teaching. Think of the pastors who feel the very real desire to monitor the latest trends; what people are liking, listening to, watching, clicking, reading, talking about … The temptation is to focus so much on being interesting that we discard anything that is perceived to be boring, to replace the Bible with entertainment or personalities, to replace what is true with what is liked. But let’s not just point the finger at the professional Bible teachers themselves. How often do we all talk about our teachers as if the most important thing that matters about what they have to say is how interesting it is: interesting = good, boring = bad? If the interesting/boring spectrum is the main thing you care about when you comment about your own Bible teachers (in private, in public, online), then you need to repent, because you are contributing to a culture which feeds the production of heresy, which leads people away from Christ.

Really, there is a far better way forward: a way which, in the end, is truly interesting. But to begin with, a lot of it looks quite boring, especially to people who are used to a quick-fix solution to their boredom. It means retelling the “old, old story” again and again, holding fast to the “faith once for all delivered to the saints”, passing on the tradition as we find it in the Scriptures. How boring does that sound! But only on the surface. Just like the sullen teenager who declares his or her parents to be boring, even though they may well have wonderful, interesting and satisfying lives through their deep relationships, their loving family, the joys and heartache of seeing their children grow; so too, to declare this activity as ‘boring’ is to miss what it’s really all about.

Because like any real and deep relationship, an ongoing commitment to the day-to-day drudgeries of our spiritual lives creates something that in the end is truly, profoundly, satisfyingly fascinating in our own relationship with God. Hours in reading and talking about the Bible together; being fascinated with the acts of God in history, in his people and in our lives; discovering and reliving and rediscovering the intricacies and the wonder of God himself as the triune creator and judge and redeemer who lives and acts and loves (the Trinity is so incredibly interesting it can never be boring!); exploring together how all these different stories and realities that we find in the Bible, which can seem so strange, do actually fit together and make sense; being astounded by the way in which God’s Spirit through his word moves us out of blandness, to apparent paradox, then beyond what we naïvely thought was paradox to a deeper understanding of who God is and how he works and what he has done for his own glory and for us in his Son Jesus Christ; seeing our lives and the lives of our brothers and sisters and those in the world around us pierced to the heart, rescued from wrath, turned upside-down, transformed, and resurrected. It would be a heinous crime to think that this was boring, wouldn’t it?

The biggest difference between today’s writing and the writing of the past is that writers are no longer put to death. Writers nowadays could never dream of having to die for what they have written. Even if writerly execution was not always common, the possibility of death was implicit in every act of writing. The zone within which writers worked was marked out by this juridical possibility. But in the West today there is no writing for which a person could conceivably be executed. This alters the whole nature of scholarly inquiry. It is also partly responsible for the bloodless mediocrity of most contemporary writing.

Ben Myers. See the full post.

As I began reading Campbell’s description of “justification theory”, I was startled by its wild claims. It certainly didn’t reflect what I had learned in theological college about justification and salvation. Campbell’s theory, for example, espouses a voluntarist view of humanity, natural revelation and the experience of despair as an essential component in salvation, an arbitrary view of “faith”, and a strict contractual / economic view of atonement. As far as I can tell, this “theory” doesn’t reflect any of the serious attempts to articulate the gospel made by any well-thought-through theologian or exegete in the history of the Christian church. I checked out the endnotes to find out who on earth Campbell was talking about, but discovered that he doesn’t give any examples of anyone who could be said to endorse this “theory”, apart from a couple of parenthetical references to Luther (notes 21 and 24); and that his short critique of Federal Calvinism (pp. 14-15) is based almost entirely on some articles by James Torrance rather than on any primary sources.

When Cambpell does critique a particular theologian at length (Anselm, in chapter 2), he gets him wrong at his most fundamental point. Campbell argues that Anselm’s view of the atonement is “essentially economic” because it posits that “human sins are a violation of God’s rights to certain good and services”, and then implies that Anselm didn’t consider that “[t]he only thing that God can be deprived of is the honor and respect due him and his decrees” (p 52). Now I’m not saying that Anselm got everything right, but you can’t accuse him of not taking God’s honour and respect seriously. This is his basic idea of atonement – the satisfaction of God’s honour (not paying back money to God). See 1.11-14 in Anselm, ‘Why God Became Man’. Pages 100-83 in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1956.

So after reading these chapters, I concluded that Campbell isn’t deriving his “justification theory of salvation” from any of the serious traditions of Christianity, and so (despite his protestations, pp 12-13) his theory is a “straw man” in the technical scholarly sense, failing in its intended purpose to describe “the most formidable account of the [biblical] data that we yet possess” (p. 13).

However … as I kept reading and rereading, I had to ask, where is Campbell’s theory coming from? I can only guess, but the only explanation I can find is that he has derived his “theory” from elements of some popular gospel preaching. His description does indeed resonate with the kind of Gospel-preaching that emphasises “our decision for Christ” above all else, or gospel preaching that sets God the “just” father in opposition Christ the “loving” son, or gospel preaching that tells us simply to “have faith” without adequately describing the object of and reason for such faith, or gospel preaching that promises individual salvation and nothing more. It’s quite possible for gospel preachers to fall into traps such as these, and more.

So, if you are a gospel preacher, and you have a few spare hours, I’d suggest that you read through Campbell’s “theory” and his critique of it (at least chapter 2). Campbell usefully lists a lot of traps for young (and old) players. And if your own gospel preaching sounds like Campbell’s “justification theory of salvation”, weep, repent, and go back and read the Bible (and Luther and Calvin, for that matter).

Ben says:

Dear brothers and sisters,

Have you ever wondered if deep theological truths combined with 80′s heavy metal music could result in an effective gospel ministry for kids? Check this out! www.myspace.com/bpakula

If you like what you hear, perhaps you’d be willing to make a donation to help me record my next album. It is only through donations that I’ll be able to record in the foreseeable future.

1. All funds received will go towards either recording time, music equipment or mastering time.
2. NO AMOUNT IS TOO SMALL!
3. Your contribution, and any correspondence pertaining to your contribution will be kept completely confidential – there will be no names in the acknowledgment section of the CD jacket, just a general thanks.
4. I’d be most grateful for your contribution, and of course I will seek to make an album that teaches kids many gospel truths from the Bible in a fun and exciting way.

To make a donation, simply click on the button below, then enter the donation amount on the linked page.

Many thanks, Ben Pakula

I recently preached at the commissioning of two dear friends of mine who have now gone as missionaries to work as ministers in a church in Malaysia, serving the gospel of our Lord. These people have left their comfort, their lifestyle, their careers; they have moved away from those they love (and many of those who love them, like myself). I am told that Christian work in Malaysia is like this: it’s hot and humid, they get paid barely enough to live on, husband and wife are expected by their church to work tremendously long hours with only a few hours of sleep a night (the wife has just borne their second child), and nobody respects them really because they’re not doing anything worthwhile or socially respectable. Furthermore, if it’s proved that they have spoken about Jesus to a Muslim, then they risk jail under the laws of the Malaysian states who interpret the constitution.

Frankly, it’s insane, it’s senseless and it’s irrational. These people are foolish… in the eyes of the world. But I preached on wisdom, from 1 Corinthians 1. And we discovered, as we looked at this text in its Old Testament context, that they are doing the wisest, most sensible, sane, reasonable, prudent, practical thing they could possibly be doing.

1 Corinthians 1 in literary and theological context

Smit has outlined a helpful structure for 1 Corinthians 1:10-4:21, based on syntactical considerations. [1] Following an introduction, in which the themes of ‘Word’ (logos) ‘wisdom’ (sophia) and party strife (especially between Paul and Apollos) are introduced, there are four major sections. Each section has a rhetorical argument followed by a personal address from Paul to the Corinthians. Section I (1:18-2:5) is about ‘word’ (logos): Paul contends that his initial visit to Corinth was in conformity with God’s reason, not human reason. Section II (2:6-3:4) is about ‘wisdom’ (sophia): Paul contends that the Corinthians themselves lack God’s wisdom, whereas he, Paul, has God’s wisdom. Section III (3:5-4:5) seems to shift ground to an argument about Paul and Apollos: Paul challenges the party strife by contending that they all belong to Christ, not to individual men. Once this is established Section IV (4:6-21) is Paul’s attempt to show that he does, indeed, have authority over them in Christ. The sections are linked by important keywords. Smit’s structure shows that the relationship between ‘word’, ‘wisdom’ and party strife is the major concern of the discourse.

What is ‘wisdom’? The word covers a broad range of concepts. In the ot, it was used to refer to reflective thought, articulate discourse and skilled action. [2] These three aspects are also present in 1 Corinthians: thought (1:19), discourse (1:17; 2:1, 4, 6, 13; 6:5; 12:8), and skill (3:10). Thus when applied to God, wisdom can refer to God’s plan for salvation (1:21) [3] or to the actual enactment of this plan, the ‘stuff of salvation’ (1:24, 30; 8:6). [4] Paul’s inclusion of the cross in his discussion of wisdom (1:17-18, 23; 2:2, is striking given that wisdom and crucifixion were utterly antithetical in the ancient world. Hengel’s detailed study shows that crucifixion was widespread, extremely cruel and inflicted mainly on the despised lower classes as a deterrent against the undermining of law and order. It was the most extreme form of public humiliation (social and ethical). Hence the ‘folly’ of the cross is not metaphorical: the cross would have been a sharp, provoking instrument for Paul’s preaching that would have met with real opposition in the mind, speech and action of his listeners. [5]

False trails

Much of the scholarship (discussed below) is interested in trying to find out what the exact situation was in Corinth. The theory seems to be that if we can find out exactly what was happening then, we can look for parallel situations now and apply the text to those situations. This isn’t necessarily a bad place to start. But in this case, there are two problems with this approach. Firstly, it’s notoriously difficult to work out what was happening in Corinth. The scholarship has ended up with a host of rival theories rather than helpful applications. Some believe Paul was countering Gnosticism, others that he was trying to unite Jew and Gentile, others that he was trying to defend himself against adherents of Apollos who were undermining his ministry, others that he is just trying to keep the peace like a good statesman. But more importantly, this approach generally doesn’t reckon with the way that Paul actually ends up solving the problem—by the use of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Another temptation for the preacher might be to fail to capture the breadth of the biblical idea of ‘wisdom’, and so to reduce the word ‘wisdom’ in this passage to a single idea, like practical know-how or ethical action or political prudence. In that case, the centrepiece of the passage (i.e. the cross of Christ) would have little to do with the application (e.g. be good, be united, etc.).

The difference biblical theology makes

The fact that Paul deliberately quotes from the ot using the word gegraptai, ‘it stands written’ (1:19, 31; 2:9; 3:19) with the perfect tense (denoting ongoing relevance) should not be treated lightly. [6] This is further enhanced by Paul’s description of the purpose (hina) of his discussion (tauta): ‘that you may learn in our [case]: “Not beyond that which stands written” (to me huper ha gegraptai)’ (4:6). This has been variously explained, [7] but the most straightforward reading is that Paul’s discussion has aimed to show that the Scriptures, particularly those he has referred to, are necessary and sufficient for the prevention of strife.

Williams has undertaken an important study into Paul’s use of Scripture in this section of 1 Corinthians, showing that it is a significant factor that must be taken into account alongside the historical situation in Corinth. [8] Paul uses Scripture (primarily Isaiah, and also Jeremiah and Daniel) with a high respect for its original context, but interprets it in relation to ‘the Christian time era or the Christ event.’ [9] Oropeza’s study shows that 1 Corinthians 1-4 is imbued with Isaianic themes, and that this is consistent with Paul’s thinking in terms of apocalyptic time frames (1 Cor 1:4-9; 15:20-28, 51-55; 16:22) with its characteristic ‘temporal dualism’. [10] Paul is fighting against a wrong eschatology, which was leading to moral misbehaviour and divisive conduct. [11] As we shall see, both ‘wisdom’ and ‘rule’ are significant motifs in each of the scriptural contexts from which Paul draws his teaching.

The book of Isaiah has a discernible ‘trajectory’ which takes place across the book as a whole and within its individual sections. [12] This trajectory takes us from the existing world order (with its ruling powers: Israel, Assyria and Babylon) to a new world order established by God. It takes place via demolition and reconstruction, judgment and salvation, in that paradoxical order. Its crucial transformative event is the forgiveness that comes through the discipline of a suffering servant, and it climaxes in God’s Spirit-empowered servants being sent out (e.g. Isa 61:1) to preach the same two-edged message which divides the world into two groups: the judged and the saved. [13]

In Isaiah, there are therefore two types of wisdom: human and divine. Both types of wisdom are ultimately attempts at salvation. [14] There is the human ‘wisdom’ of the nations (ethne, cf 1 Cor 1:23): their rulers (Isa 10:12-14, archontes 19:11 cf 1 Cor 2:6) and their advisers (sophoi, Isa 19:11-12), which will be brought to nothing (cf 1 Cor 1:20). There is also the human ‘wisdom’ of those within Israel who recommend trust in foreign rulers, the advisers (sophoi and sunetoi Isa 29:14, 1 Cor 1:19) and scribes (grammatikoi, Isa 33:18); [15] this, too, will be brought to nothing (1 Cor 1:19-20), for they are, in fact, oppressive enemies of the Messiah and God’s people. [16] Perhaps Paul’s intention in his series of three questions in 1 Cor 1:20 is to identify the debater of his own era of salvation-history (suzetetes tou aionos toutou) with these ‘wise’ enemies from Isaiah’s time. Aligning one’s self only with a human preacher is, in fact, a disastrous human attempt at salvation. [17]

Divine wisdom is also on show in Isaiah. There is a messianic figure introduced in 11:1, a ‘shoot from the stump of Jesse’, whose first characteristic is that the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel and might will rest upon him (cf 1 Cor 2:10). [18] Even though the ‘wise’ in Israel were blind and deaf (Isa 28:7, 12; 29:9-14; 30:9-11; 33:18), when Israel is restored and her righteous king reappears, the blind and deaf will see and hear again (Isa 29:18, 30:20-22, 32:1-5, 33:17-22). [19] This king will put into effect God’s plan of salvation, which is independent of human wisdom (Isa 40:13-14, quoted in 1 Cor 2:16). But, significantly, this salvific plan will come about in a strange and marvellous way. A suffering servant will come, and will suffer vicariously as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. This servant shall be wise (sunesei, Isa 52:13), and by his knowledge (sunesei) he will justify many (Isa 53:11). In this way, he will silence and amaze the rulers of the nations (Isa 52:15, alluded to in 1 Cor 2:9). [20] So the eschatological judgment, salvation and vindication of those who wait patiently for God is an amazing, unheard-of, unimaginable act of God’s wisdom (Isa 64:6, cf 1 Cor 2:9).

Von Rad is surely right to see an eschatological development of the Wisdom motif in the Jewish apocalyptic literature (including Daniel). [21] The apocalyptic hiddenness of God’s wisdom, which must be revealed in dreams to the apocalyptic seer, is a theme of Daniel, especially 2:19-23 which contains many of the themes in 1 Cor 2:6-11. [22] The Messiah, disguised to those who are not God’s people, is the chief figure of salvation. [23] The rulers of this age in Daniel are human kingdoms; in Paul they are human authorities. [24] In Daniel, the mature (cf 1 Cor 2:6) are those who look towards the endpoint of God’s plan, the outcome of the conflict between human kingdoms and God’s kingdom. [25] Paul has combined two strong apocalyptic motifs: special revelation to the apocalyptic seer, and the fact that historical events are the carrying out of God’s powerful plan. [26]

Space forbids an exploration of Paul’s use of numerous other Scriptural quotations and allusions in 1 Corinthians 1-4. In 1:31, he quotes from Jeremiah 9:23-24, which has similar themes to those in Isaiah. In 3:19-20, he quotes from Israel’s wisdom literature itself (Job 5:13 and a ‘wisdom’ Psalm 94:11) to show the supremacy of God’s wisdom over human wisdom. These Scriptural references combine with those from Isaiah and Daniel to give the unmistakable impression that Scripture, interpreted in the light of the cross of the suffering servant / Messiah Jesus Christ, is necessary and sufficient to understand how Christians should think and act in the present age (4:6).

The ‘wisdom’ that discerns this world order is different, and even opposed, to the God-given wisdom that discerns God’s new world order. Thus human ‘power’ in speech and factionalism is the antithesis of God’s new world order, brought about by the cross. In this new world order, one cannot say ‘“I am of Paul”, or “I am of Apollos”, or “I am of Cephas”, or [even] “I am of Christ”’ in the style of factions (1:12). Instead, God’s wisdom, supremely demonstrated in the death and resurrection of the Suffering Servant, has turned the times and powers and authorities upside down and placed them all in submission to Christ and his people. Hence, ‘everything is of you: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; everything is of you; and you are of Christ; and Christ is of God.’ (3:21-23). This is the wisdom of God; the wisdom of the cross.

Sermon structure

First, I raised the issue of wisdom in the concrete situation of my friend who were going as missionaries to Malaysia (I’ve called them X & Y)

I went for a quick biblical definition of wisdom, trying to capture the scope of the OT concept.

Now some context from 1 Corinthians, with a little explanation of what I thought was the historical background (see below, although my application is not absolutely tied to this theory).

Then I tried to broaden the application

Then I introduced Paul’s discussion of wisdom in the context of the cross

I then looked back at Isaiah 52-53, which speaks about the ministry of the Suffering Servant in terms of ‘wisdom’

Then an explanation of how this is seen to be foolish by the world

I followed with a description of how tough it is to be a minister in Malaysia (see introduction, above)

Then I tried to apply this wisdom to the hearers. I was not trying to work out how their situation was exactly the same as the historical situation of the Corinthians (e.g. avoid disunity; don’t be a Gnostic, etc.). Rather, I was trying to help them apply the ‘cross-shaped’ wisdom from God to their current situation—whatever it was.

A discussion of the resources I used

While it is difficult to pin down exactly what the situation in Corinth was, there is a wealth of material out there to help, and we can have some degree of confidence in the results. The following discussion should be treated as an appendix to this Biblical Theology Briefing.

Older solutions to the problem of the historical situation at Corinth proposed that Paul was aiming to counter a form of Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism. Horsley, for example, argues that Paul is facing a teaching based on the Jewish wisdom tradition that believes in a spiritual salvific power called Sophia. [27] Eloquence was an important element of this tradition (especially in Philo), even though empty Sophistry was rejected. [28] Hence ‘words of wisdom’ (1:17, 2:1, 2:4) are eloquent words imparted by Sophia. [29] The eloquent Apollos had not helped matters. ‘Through [his] ministry some of the Corinthians apparently had come to regard the (Christian) gospel as wisdom, the leaders as teachers of wisdom, themselves as wise’. [30] However, Paul does not want to be viewed as a wisdom teacher, because he is concerned with Christ crucified, not eloquence (1:17-18). His solution is to take Gnostic language and turn it on its head. So, for example, in 2:6, when Paul says that he speaks wisdom among the ‘mature’ (teleioi), he is using a Gnostic term that means spiritually advanced souls, but ironically referring to those who listen to his gospel message. Conversely, he refers to the Corinthians using the Gnostic terminology for less advanced souls, ‘infants’ (nepioi, 3:1). [31]

Kovacs rejects this theory, because it has to assume that Paul got too carried away with his Gnostic parody to the point of sounding Gnostic himself. [32] For Kovacs, 1 Cor 2:6-16 is Paul’s own apocalyptic interpretation of the death of Christ, not a parody of hidden Gnostic wisdom. The ‘cross’ is the key to the passage, not the idea of ‘the mature’. [33] Thus

The core problem, according to Kovacs, is not Gnosticism but a wrong eschatology which is countered by the proclamation of the cross of Christ (as we have seen already from Isaiah).

Another, related, set of solutions to the puzzle stems from the hypothesis (given great impetus by F. C. Baur in the nineteenth century) that one can discern a fundamental division between followers of a Jewish, Law-based, Petrine Christianity and those of a Hellenic, Law-free, Pauline Christianity. [35] Grayson, for example, posits that the Cephas/Christ party was treating the words of the historical Jesus (logos) as a new Torah (nomos). They were basing wisdom (sophia) upon it, and rejecting Paul and Apollos whose teaching centred on the liberating freedom that comes through the preaching of the cross. But for Paul, wisdom is not based on Jesus’ instructions (1:17, ouk en sophia logou) but on the proclamation of the cross (1:18). [36] Davis’ thesis is similar, but identifies logos directly with the law. Documents from the Jewish wisdom tradition (Ben Sirach, Qumran, Philo) show a common theme: wisdom is identified with Torah, is only available to certain elite groups via the Spirit, and is associated with eloquence. [37] Davis detects an argument against this ‘nomistic’ wisdom in 1 Corinthians. It has been superseded by an entirely new Christological wisdom, for the judgment of the law has fallen on Christ. [38] Schnabel, too, sees the ‘wisdom’ in Corinth through a Hellenistic Jewish sapiental matrix, which relativises the cross of Christ, strips it of its uniqueness and so empties it of its effectiveness (1:17). [39]

There are a number of problems with this reconstruction. Firstly, although logos could possibly be taken to mean instructions from the Torah or Jesus, its cognate verb lego is applied to a variety of speech acts, even to the words of those who follow Paul and Apollos (1:10, 12, 15; 3:4). Secondly, it is difficult to detect any direct diatribe from Paul against law-based Christianity. The vocabulary he uses elsewhere to denigrate reliance on the law (such as ‘law’ and ‘works’, Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 27-28) is completely absent from 1 Corinthians 1-4. Later in the epistle, when he does refer to nomos, he draws positive ethical applications (9:8, 9; 14:21, 34). Finally, the reconstruction requires a ‘hidden agenda’ on Paul’s part, for he does not attack Peter (Cephas) as he does in Galatians 2:11-16. Rather, he picks up on the name Apollos (3:4-6). Goulder, who seeks to defend this view, argues that Paul used Apollos as an ‘easy example’ of unity and left the Corinthians to draw their own conclusions about Cephas (3:22). [40] However, as Tuckett observes, Goulder’s extensive thesis breaks down under the weight of complexity. Again, it is much simpler to see a wrong eschatology as the Corinthians’ problem, and to take Paul’s critiques at face value. [41]

Ker and Smit take Paul’s discussion of Apollos seriously, and believe that the primary problem in Corinth was that adherents of Apollos were undermining Paul’s authority. [42] Smit believes that Paul’s founding visit was being criticised for lack of philosophical finesse (2:1, 3; 3:1-2); Apollos was the logical, philosophical one (Acts 18:24, an aner logios); his adherents loved his wisdom based on human reason (sophia logou, 1:17). Paul’s gospel, however, was denigrated because it was one of paradox (1:18-31) and hiddenness (2:6-16). [43] Ker believes that Paul ultimately favours the ‘Paul party’ (1:12). [44] Smit is more balanced—Paul is at pains to express both the unity (3:5, 7-9, 22) and the right order between himself as founding father and Apollos as guardian and waterer (3:6, 10; 4:14-15). [45] However, both agree that in a volatile situation, Paul cannot assert his fatherly authority outright. He must be covert and indirect. [46] Paul thus employs a wordplay which subtly compares Apollos’ adherents (APOLLO, 1:12) to those who are perishing (APOLLUMENOIS, 1:18) and the wisdom that God will destroy (APOLO, 1:19). [47] His subsequent references to two types of ‘wisdom’ are then references to the human wisdom of Apollos’ adherents (1:20-22; 2:1, 4-5, 13; 3:19) and the paradoxical wisdom of Paul’s proclamation of the cross (1:21, 24, 30; 2:6-7).

Unfortunately, this solution also suffers from a tendency to subvert the plain meaning of the text: ‘[a]t one level of reading the text there is no problem [. . .] But there are other possibilities’. [48] One wonders if Ker and Smit should have taken more seriously the saying ‘not beyond what is written’ (4:6) in their own reading of Paul! Apollos is never denigrated by Paul; he is simply given his rightful position, united in purpose and distinct in role (3:6-9). Apollos is Paul’s ‘brother’ (16:12), which is a characteristic term of warmth and Christian unity (1:1, 10-11, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 5:11; 6:5-6, 8; 7:12, 15, 24, 29; 8:11-13; 9:5; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 31, 50, 58; 16:11-12, 15, 20) despite Ker’s plea that this verse sounds a bit chilly. [49] On the contrary, Paul’s own self-denigration is intriguing (1:13-16; 3:4-5, 22; 4:1). Elsewhere, Paul is not afraid to openly command allegiance to his own teaching and put others’ down, even in the face of opposition (Gal 1:6-9, 2:11, 5:10-12, 6:12-13; Phil 3:2; 2 Cor 11:4, 13-15). But here, he distances himself from such allegiance. Something else is going on. [50]

There is evidence that we should take the plural schismata (1:10) and the mention of four names (1:12) at face value and admit more than one fault line in the Corinthian community. There are places where Paul admits distinction between himself and other authorities, but deliberately closes off any suggestion of division. For example, he admits the existence of two sources of teaching: ‘the Lord’s’ (7:10, cf. 7:25) and his own (7:12, 25), but then goes on to assert their complementarity (7:35) and equal authority (7:40). He also admits two sorts of post-resurrection appearance of Christ: that to Cephas then others (15:5-7), and that to himself ‘as to one abnormally born’ (15:8), but then goes on to assert that the resulting proclamation and belief is the same in either case (15:11). It would be too much to claim definitively that these are the respective issues behind the ‘Christ’ and ‘Cephas’ parties (1:12), but it does show the existence of other divisions undermines the identification of a wisdom-loving ‘Apollos party’ as the sole source of division.

We might seek for an answer in 4:6, where Paul himself explains the procedure (meteschematisa) and purpose (hina [. . .] hina) of his previous discussion (tauta). Unfortunately, this verse has proved notoriously difficult! [51] The possible use of a well-known rhetorical device called logos eschematismenos ‘figure of speech’, or ‘covert allusion’ has been noted, [52] apparently providing a license for us to read between the lines in the previous discussion (as many have done). However, if it is such a device, Paul is not using it in the traditional way—by naming it its covert nature is nullified! [53] Also, the word is not schematizo but metaschematizo which in all its other occurrences means either ‘transform the shape’ or ‘disguise’. If it meant ‘covert allusion’, then this would be unique. [54] I prefer to translate literally, ‘I have transformed the shape’ of the previous discussion. That is, Paul has transformed a discussion of schismata in general (1:10-3:3) to focus on a particular schisma—a fault line between Paul’s and Apollos’ complementary ministries (3:4-17)—and then widened the discussion again to schismata in general (3:18-23), applying it to the issue of how to view any leader—as a servant of Christ, not a hero to be examined or applauded (4:1-5). In this way, nobody may be puffed up on account of any particular leaders against any other (4:6).

Other solutions see the very existence of schismata as the root problem in Corinth. Welborn downplays doctrinal differences in favour of a sociological model based on conflicts in Greco-Roman city-states. [55] His analysis is based on a comparison of Paul’s terminology with that used by Greco-Roman historians. Paul’s goal is not the refutation of heresy, but the prevention of stasis (strife, discord, uprising or rebellion). [56] 1:10 is ‘a mere call to consensus [. . .] hence his use of katartizein’. [57] In 1:20, the ‘debater’ (suzetetes) is the clever ‘rhetor’ who creates discord in the Greek city state. [58] ‘Wisdom’ is a claim by the rhetors to possess higher knowledge, which led to an elitism that reflected itself in political struggles. Paul had to claim wisdom for himself in order to regain his position as teacher and guide, so that he could call for an end to the factions (2:6-16). [59] Welborn’s study is a helpful reminder that human politics cannot be separated from theological disputes, but he is too quick to dismiss any possibility that the problem is more than sociological. In 1:20, he notes that the use of ‘wise man’ and ‘scribe’ from the ot background. However, it is only the third term, ‘debater’ (suzetetes), that has any significance for Welborn, apparently proving that ‘[t]he sophia which Paul fears will undermine the community is nothing other than rhetoric’. [60] Welborn also notes a theological move by Paul: ‘The strife of the factions is no petty quarrel [. . .] but a mirror of the cosmic conflict between the rulers of this age and the power of God.’ [61] However, Welborn is not impressed by this ‘eschatological gesture’ which masks ‘the reality of political conflict.’ [62]

Pogoloff and Winter have provided a more convincing model for the situation at Corinth, following the patterns of Greco-Roman rhetorical / sophistic rivalries. Pogoloff argues that sophia logou (1:17) means ‘cultured speech’. [63] The wisdom that Paul is opposing is rhetorical skill, which was seen as the possession of certain individuals who formed cult followings. Paul and Apollos, among others, had therefore become foci of divisive rivalries over status. This had theological implications: ‘rhetoric enhanced by practical skills’ empties the cross because it stops the cross from being an act of pure grace that any social class can access.

Winter provides a more comprehensive picture of first century sophistry, and argues that Paul’s discussion of wisdom is a point-by-point refutation of aspects of sophistic behaviour. Possibly Apollos’ own use of rhetoric at Corinth had incited sophist-style factionalism. [64] Sophists (sophistai), when they came, announced their own renown, extemporised, and used rhetoric with great flair.[65] They inspired a particular commitment and zeal for themselves amongst their disciples. [66] The terms zelos and eris (1:11, 3:3) are terms for Sophistic discipleship, also used by Philo to oppose Sophists’ love of form over content. [67] But Paul turns all the sophistic and rhetorical terminology on its head. [68] He needed no ‘topic’ to extemporise upon and so prove his rhetorical superiority (2:1); he had a message already to proclaim (2:2). He had no renown, but used weak, afraid, trembling oratory (2:3). He inspired confidence (pistis, 2:5), not by the ‘power’ (dunamis, 2:5) of ‘persuasion’ (peitho, 2:4) or rhetorical skill, but by the ‘clear proof’ (apodeixis) of the work of the Spirit in the listeners (2:4). He reverses the pattern of sophistic boasting (3:18-23) [69] and urges the Corinthians to ‘imitate’ him and ‘boast’ in him (as the Sophists did their leaders)—but in sufferings and afflictions, in the way of the cross (4:6-21). [70] Rhetoric would empty the cross (1:17) because sophistic methods would overshadow the message itself. [71]

The picture of sophistic-style factionalism at Corinth is a convincing one, but it should be noted that Paul is not just dissociating himself from a sophistic valuing of form over content. [72] For ‘in the mind of the first-century Graeco-Roman listener, education and eloquence were bound together’. [73] Hellenistic Jews, too, would agree that ‘by speech (logos) shall wisdom (sophia) be known’ (Sir 4:24). Rather, Paul is arguing against the whole worldview (sophia) expressed by the speech pattern (logos) of sophistry; a worldview that exalts human power in both form and content. The cross is the power of salvation that appears as weakness, and the speech pattern (logos) of the cross therefore takes a cruciform shape. [74] In order to nullify any human attempt at self-salvation, God ‘chose a means of revelation actually contradictory to [human] wisdom—the foolish proclamation of a crucified Savior (1:21b).’ [75] Instead of explaining human logic by human means, in 2:13 he explains spiritual things (pneumatika) by spiritual means (pneumatikois). Therefore, the truth of the cross ‘cannot be achieved through the best of human intellect and strength but must be received as a gift in the humble submission of faith and trust.’ [76] In fact, Paul’s own writing is highly rhetorical, but its rhetoric subverts sophistic speech and therefore sophistic wisdom. [77]

The existence of sophistic factions, therefore, is a spiritual, theological problem in and of itself. It is not just that the Sophistic divisions were in danger of falsifying Paul’s doctrine by their potential for men to rely on rhetorical skill rather than the gospel message. [78] Grindheim explains this theological problem in terms of the mysterious and irresolvable ‘paradox’ between human wisdom and God’s gospel. The gospel is all about the reversal of values, and must therefore be received in the paradox of Christ crucified by those who abandon attempts to excel by worldly standards. [79] Grindheim rejects any notions of redemptive history in Paul’s account. [80] However, redemptive history is hard to escape in 2:7-8: God’s wisdom is described as ‘predetermined before the ages’; and God’s purpose in hiding it is to ensure that a specific historical event (the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory by the rulers of this age) takes place. The connection between the sophistic factions and wisdom must be explained in terms of redemptive history and eschatology, as we have already alluded to above. [81] This connection can be seen much more clearly when we examine Paul’s use of the ot Scriptures. In fact, as we have seen, 1 Corinthians presents a Scriptural answer to sophistic factionalism.

ENDNOTES

[1] Joop F. M. Smit, ‘“What Is Apollos? What Is Paul?”: in Search for the Coherence of First Corinthians 1:10-4:21’, Novum Testamentum 44/3 (2002): 231-51.
[2] E. J. Schnabel, ‘Wisdom’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin & Daniel G. Reid; Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 967-68.
[3] Charles K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London: A & C Black, 1971), 53.
[4] Barrett, First Corinthians, 56.
[5] Martin Hengel, Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1977), esp. 86-90.
[6] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 576.
[7] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 351-56.
[8] H. H. Drake Williams, The Wisdom of the Wise: The Presence and Function of Scripture within 1 Cor 1:18-3:23 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 335-36.
[9] Williams, Scripture, 337.
[10] B. J. Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah in the Rhetoric of Paul: New Exodus, Wisdom and the Humility of the Cross in Utopian-Apocalyptic Expectations’, in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament (ed. Duane F. Watson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 89.
[11] Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah’, 90, 103.
[12] Barry Webb, The Message of Isaiah (The Bible Speaks Today; Leicester: IVP, 1996), 30-31.
[13] Webb, Isaiah, 30-33.
[14] Williams, Scripture, 88-100.
[15] Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah’, 97-98.
[16] Williams, Scripture, 88-100.
[17] Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 189.
[18] Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah’, 98.
[19] Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah’, 98.
[20] Williams, Scripture, 159-65 fails to pick up this allusion.
[21] Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology Volume II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1965), II.306-15. He oversteps the mark, however, by severing the connection between the prophetic and apocalyptic literature.
[22] Williams, Scripture, 157-208.
[23] Williams, Scripture, 203-4.
[24] Williams, Scripture, 204-5.
[25] Williams, Scripture, 205-7.
[26] Judith L. Kovacs, ‘The Archons, the Spirit and the Death of Christ: do we Need the Hypothesis of Gnostic Opponents to Explain 1 Cor. 2:6-16?’, in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards; Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 228
[27] Richard A. Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom in Corinth’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39/2 (1977): 224-39.
[28] Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom’, 225-29.
[29] Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom’, 231.
[30] Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom’, 232.
[31] Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom’, 232-34.
[32] Kovacs, ‘Gnostic Opponents?’, 217-18.
[33] Kovacs, ‘Gnostic Opponents?’, 218.
[34] Kovacs, ‘Gnostic Opponents?’, 219.
[35] James A. Davis, Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1:18-3:20 Against the Background of Jewish Sapiental Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984), 141.
[36] K. Grayston, ‘Not with a Rod’, The Expository Times 88/1 (1976): 13-16.
[37] Davis, Wisdom and Spirit, 9-62.
[38] Davis, Wisdom and Spirit, 141-48.
[39] Schnabel, ‘Wisdom’, 969.
[40] Michael D. Goulder, ‘SOPHIA in 1 Corinthians’, New Testament Studies 37/4 (1991): 516-34., 516-34.
[41] Christopher Tuckett, ‘Jewish Christian Wisdom in 1 Corinthians?’, in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce and David E. Orton; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 201-19.
[42] Donald P. Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos: Colleagues or Rivals?’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 77 (2000): 75-97; Smit, ‘Coherence’, 241-43, 246-47.
[43] Smit, ‘Coherence’, 244-47.
[44] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 79.
[45] Smit, ‘Coherence’, 241-43.
[46] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 84; Smit, ‘Coherence’, 242-43.
[47] Smit, ‘Coherence’, 243.
[48] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 75.
[49] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 94-96.
[50] Stephen M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians (SBL Dissertation Series 134; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 99-100.
[51] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 349-51.
[52] Benjamin Fiore, ‘“Covert Allusion” in 1 Corinthians 1-4’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47/1 (1985): 85-102; Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 196-97.
[53] Fiore, ‘Covert Allusion’, 95.
[54] F. Danker, ‘metaschematizo’, BDAG 641-42.
[55] L. L. Welborn, ‘On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics’, Journal of Biblical Literature 106/1 (1987): 86.
[56] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 89-90.
[57] Winter, Sophists, 181.
[58] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 102.
[59] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 103-6.
[60] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 102.
[61] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 109.
[62] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 110.
[63] Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia, 99-127.
[64] Winter, Sophists, 177-78.
[65] Winter, Sophists, 144-47.
[66] Winter, Sophists, 185-87.
[67] Winter, Sophists, 175-76.
[68] Winter, Sophists, 149-50.
[69] Winter, Sophists, 195-96.
[70] Winter, Sophists, 195-202.
[71] Winter, Sophists, 188.
[72] contra Winter, Sophists, 188.
[73] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 77.
[74] Thiselton, First Corinthians, 157.
[75] John B. Polhill, ‘The Wisdom of God and Factionalism’, Review and Expositor 80/3 (1983): 329.
[76] Polhill, ‘Factionalism’, 330.
[77] Smit, ‘Coherence’, 247.
[78] contra Winter, Sophists, 188.
[79] Sigurd Grindheim, ‘Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 2:6-16)’, Journal of Biblical Literature 121/4 (2002): 689-709.
[80] Grindheim, ‘Wisdom for the Perfect’, 698-99.
[81] Kovacs, ‘Gnostic Opponents?’, 219; Tuckett, ‘Jewish Christian Wisdom?’, 201-19;

It’s available to download as a PDF here.

Preparing to Teach the Bible—Step by Step

Part 1—Understanding the passage

• Pray
• Read the passage several times
• Context
  • What has just come before this passage?
  • What has just come after this passage?
  • Where does this passage fit in the book?
• Observe (Who, what, where, when)
  • What sort of literature is this?
  • Who are the main people involved?
  • Where and when is the action / writing happening?
  • What facts are being taught?
  • What instructions are given?
  • What warnings or promises are given?
  • What examples are given?
• Structure
  • Repeated words or ideas
  • Later verses which relate to earlier verses
  • Link words or phrases (e.g. “Therefore”, “but”, “For”, “And then he went . . .”)?
  • Logical sections
  • Can you summarise the logical flow?
  • Topic sentence or key verse
• Meaning of words
  • List the important words
  • What do the words mean?
  • (Use English dictionaries / Bible dictionaries)
  • …Remember that meaning depends on context
• Background
  • History (Bible dictionaries / commentaries)
  • Geography (Atlas)
  • …Remember not to spend too much time on this
• Difficulties
  • Your own difficulties
  • Potential difficulties in your group / audience
  • …Remember that you don’t have to solve everything
• Main message: ‘By the end of this talk / lesson / study I want the people I am teaching to learn that …’
  • One simple sentence (not just a ‘subject’)
• Impact
  • How this passage changes our thinking
  • How this passage changes our feelings
  • How this passage changes our actions

Part 2: Preparing to teach the passage

In a discussion group

• Who is in the group?
  • Age, level of understanding, motivation
• Review the main message
  • All questions should build up to the main message
• Observation questions
  • Based on your observations (see above)
  • Easy
  • Open
• Interpretation questions
  • Based on your understanding of the structure, meaning of words and difficulties (see above)
• Summary questions
  • Based on your summary of the logical flow, topic sentence and main message (see above)
• Impact questions
  • Based on your understanding of the impact (see above) and the group
• Launching question
  • Purposeful—introduces the main point
  • Interesting and relevant to the people in the group
  • Easy—so everybody can have a go

…by giving a talk

• Who are you speaking to?
  • Age, level of understanding, motivation
• What convinced you that the main message was the main message?
  • This will give you a series of points (hint: Each point will probably take 5 minutes)
  • Perhaps use your logical flow summary (above)
• For each point:
  • Say it
  • Show where you found it in the passage
  • Explain it
    • Perhaps use your understanding of meaning of words, background and difficulties (see above)
  • Illustrate it
    • Show how the point is ‘like’ something we all know
  • Apply it
    • Use your understanding of the ‘impact’
• Then put the talk together:
  • Prepare an introduction
    • Purposeful—introduces the main point
    • Interesting and relevant to the audience
  • Prepare a conclusion
  • Practise the talk

Tips for Teaching the Bible—Delivery

Tips for Leading a Bible Discussion Group

Do…

Keep interacting with the Bible. Keep everybody’s attention on what is actually in the Bible, and what that means in their lives

Welcome pauses, especially near the beginning of the time in the group. If you have asked a question, and nobody responds straight away, hopefully that means that they’re thinking about it and looking at the Bible to see what it says. Don’t try to “fill the vacuum” by saying anything – this will just distract their attention.

Value every contribution, but not equally. Be interested in everybody in the group; after all, your are in a relationship with them. Gently correct people if they say something that is definitely wrong, not by jumping in and correcting them (a sure way to shut everybody else up!) but by trying to get other people to respond, or by probing further, and helping them to understand for themselves where they are wrong.

(Titus 2:7-8) In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

Don’t…

Don’t answer questions straight away. Instead, try to get the group thinking of the answers by looking at the Bible. For example, if somebody asks a question, you might want to point them to a particular part of the passage (or even read it out) and ask them what the Bible is saying about it. Or you might want to ask the rest of the group about it – often another member of the group knows the answer. Help people as much as possible to understand what the Bible is saying, but don’t just hand out answers.

Don’t get caught out focussing on one talkative person at the expense of others. Make sure everybody becomes a part of the discussion.

Don’t just sit back and let the discussion run away. You must always be directing people back to the Bible and the main message which you have discovered from reading it.

Tips for giving a talk

Try to be concrete as much as possible rather than abstract, especially in your illustrations. A good talker will paint a picture in your mind. Saying something like “the car went down the road” is much less effective than “the black porsche raced down the highway”. Make sure that when doing this you are still being faithful to the Bible.

Repeat yourself in interesting ways, especially when you’re stating important points. The more times you say the same thing, the more chance that the people listening to you will take in what you’re trying to tell them. There are a lot of ways to repeat yourself without being boring. One way is just to say the same sentence twice, the second time more slowly. Or pause, let what you’ve said sink in and allow your listeners to repeat what you’ve said in their own minds. You may want to rephrase what you’ve just said, putting a new slant on it.

Some analyses have shown that the casual listener takes in only about 10% of what he or she hears. So if you’ve stated your main message in different ways at least ten times during your talk, there’s a good chance that your listeners will get it!

In a word processor, I can use different type styles to emphasise what I’m communicating. When speaking, we can use changes in speed, voice pitch, loudness, gestures, etc to make our talks interesting and bring out important points.

Usually it’s best to speak at about half the speed you think you should. Remember that you know your own talk very well, but your listeners will be hearing it for the first time.

Before you start, make sure that everything around you is organised and in its right place, that you are comfortable and that you know what the first thing you are going to say is. Take a few breaths, and then begin.

Listen to and watch good speakers and analyse what they’re doing. What makes them effective?

PRACTISE!!!

I’d like to admit something to you. My admission isn’t particularly juicy or scandalous, but it’s an admission, nonetheless. The admission is this: I’m not honest enough with people when it comes to my sins. I don’t admit my sins to others often enough. The reason I don’t do it is pride, fear of what people will think, and general obliviousness to my own sin.

It’s true that God doesn’t require me to formally admit every individual sin to another human being in order to receive forgiveness. I certainly don’t need a special ‘priest’ to hear my sins. Because of Jesus’ perfect atoning death (1 John 2:1-2), all we ultimately need is to confess that we’re sinners before God: “If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). I can have full assurance of forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ alone. So why do I think I should admit my sins more often to other people?

Firstly, it’s because even the verse I have quoted above appears in the context of Christian fellowship. 1 John isn’t written to isolated individuals; when he tells them to confess their sins, the Apostle John wrote to people who were together, striving to live in fellowship in God’s truth (1 John 1:7). We may confess some sins privately to God, but admitting our sins is also, to some extent, a communal thing.

Secondly, it’s because admitting our sins to one another enables people to pray for us and encourage us, which is good for our souls (Jas 5:16-20).

Thirdly, sometimes we actually need to ask another person directly to forgive us for a particular sin against that person. Admitting our sin to him or her is a crucial first step towards that important interpersonal forgiveness process (Luke 17:3-4; Eph 4:32; Col 3:13).

Fourthly, we are told to speak the truth in love to one another (Eph 4:15), and to have the word of Christ dwelling in us richly as we teach one another (Col 3:16). One key aspect of the word of Christ is that our sins are forgiven (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14, 2:13, 3:13). It would be strange to speak this word to one another “richly“ without ever admitting to times when we ourselves have sinned.

Fifthly, I have noticed that many (if not all) of the people I know who are faithful and ‘effective’ in the ministry of God’s word are people who are in the habit of occasionally admitting their own little sins and foibles to others—in public and private, describing how God has changed them. It helps their hearers to remember that Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15), and to realize that what matters in the Christian life is progress in godliness, rather than unattainable perfection. Not only is admitting our sin to others a good way to stay humble as a leader, it’s also an act of leadership by example—particularly when it’s accompanied by obvious progress and growth in godliness (1 Tim 4:15-16). It helps people see how to admit their own sins and failures, and to repent and grow. Often admitting our own sin can be an act of love for others.

So I think I need to be more deliberate in speaking of my own sins and failures in my day-to-day conversations—my lack of patience, for example, or my lack of love, joy or kindness. My envy. My greed. It’s not that I should go around confessing every sin on every occasion, or that I ought to admit everything to every individual indiscriminately, or that I should pour out my deepest secrets to everyone I meet. But I reckon it would be a good idea to work on being more realistic and open about examples of where I fail—and where Jesus forgives me and changes me.