Expecting congregants to deplete their mental energy in efforts to prevent certain verbal descriptions from prompting mental images is counterproductive. I think it better for congregants to focus on the sermon’s message without troubling themselves about any mental images that may naturally occur in the process.

The Bible is not a logically organized collection of abstract propositional statements of theological and philosophical truths. The Bible is instead a divinely inspired account of God’s redemptive work in history. This infallible record of redemptive history progresses toward, climaxes in and reflects upon the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Preaching that is rooted in this historical context often suggests to the mind of the listener mental images representing concrete historical realities. Among these concrete historical realities are the acts of Jesus described in the gospel narratives and the Old Testament descriptions of God’s appearing to people through created forms. How is a preacher to preach on texts such as these? There are different approaches depending on one’s understanding of mental images that are representations of deity.
Before going on, let me make clear that I am not talking about mental images that are attempts to depict the inner essence of God. The Bible never gives a verbal description of the inner essence of God, which no man has seen or can see. The inner essence of God is eternal and thus indescribable and undepictable. Any effort to depict the divine inner essence visually or mentally would be a serious transgression of the second commandment. All such efforts are futile attempts to do the impossible.
Yet what about the Old Testament accounts of God’s appearing to people in created forms through visions and theophanies and the New Testament accounts of the life of Jesus, who is God Incarnate? When preaching from such texts, what approach should the preacher take considering that verbal portrayals may inspire mental images? I will broadly describe three possible approaches and then recommend one of the three.
The first approach is simply to elaborate on the concrete details in the text. For example, a text may imply that Jesus’ head was stained with blood from thorn wounds. The blood of Jesus can be a synecdoche for Jesus’ human nature (the part for the whole), and a mental image of that blood can be a metonymy for the divine person subsisting in that human nature. A mental image of the blood could then be a mental representation of the second person of the Godhead.  Nevertheless, this first approach simply elaborates on the blood without concern that some may envision the blood in their minds. Mental images such as this, though not absolutely necessary to understand what was said, are often a natural and normal part of mental comprehension. Some ministers only elaborate on these concrete realities, and others sometimes go a step further and encourage their listeners to envision them.
A second approach is to emphasize and promote such mental images as channels of worship to God and as channels of grace from God. Some churches teach that one may venerate an image through a lesser form of worship and that the worship will terminate on the prototype of the image and not on the image itself. Some churches also teach that the sacrifice of the cross as an historical event is mystically present whenever they observe the Lord’s Supper. Some churches could similarly teach “that Christ and the events of his life become present to us here and now through the power of human imagination.” (See the section “The Genre of a ‘Life of Christ’” in the Introduction by Milton Walsh to part one, volume one of The Life of Christ by Ludolph of Saxony.) The Jesuits in the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation developed and promoted “spiritual exercises” that stressed the imagination’s use of all five senses as a means of being present at historical events in the life of Jesus.
A third approach is for the preacher to warn his congregants against mental images before preaching on certain texts. In preaching on the crucifixion, for example, the preacher could exhort his congregants to think of the crucifixion only in terms of propositional statements about the crucifixion without any mental imagining of what the crucifixion might have looked like. Or the preacher could advise his congregants that they may imagine a man on a cross in order to get a better sense of the crucifixion but only so long as they are careful not to identify that man with Jesus. Here are two sample warnings taken from Ralph Erskine’s book Faith No Fancy:
If therefore, when a believer hath his mind occupied about the knowledge and faith of this truth, That Christ hath a true body, an imaginary idea of that body should obtrude itself, and form an image of that body in his brain, and so shewing it, where it really is not, and where it does not exist, nor cannot be seen; he ought to deal with that imaginary idea as Abraham did, Gen. xv.11 When the fowles came down upon the carcases, he drove them away: So ought believers to drive such vain imaginations away, as they would do the devil himself tempting them, and diverting their minds from the faith of that truth, to an idle fancy about a human body. If he cannot rid himself of it as long as vain thoughts lodge within him, yet he ought daily to pray and plead with God, that he may be delivered from it; otherwise he cannot attend unto the Lord without distraction, 1 Cor. vii. 35. (p. 102, 1ines 29ff.)
An imaginary idea, for example, of his blood, is an idle vain imagination: because it cannot view the divinity thereof, as being the blood of God, Acts xx 28. (p. 312, lines 40ff.)
I agree with the first approach which accepts mental images when they are a natural part of comprehending a verbally delivered message. I strongly disagree with the second approach, which makes mental images functional idols and considers them to be mystical channels of transforming grace. I also disagree with the third approach, though not nearly so strongly. I think that expecting congregants to deplete their mental energy in efforts to prevent certain verbal descriptions from prompting mental images is counterproductive. I think it better for congregants to focus on the sermon’s message without troubling themselves about any mental images that may naturally occur in the process.
Read More

Written by T. M. Suffield |
Monday, November 1, 2021
It is easier—more comfortable, less effort, and less vulnerable—to engage with church content on social media platforms than to do so in person would be. While using the platforms to their upmost could be a helpful step into church for many—and enough so that I think it’s worth engaging in some fashion—the conversion will be hard, and harder the more you’ve suggested what you’re doing online is church. Also, plenty of people will feel the draw the other way, to disengage from meeting together and to use the online ‘alternatives’ instead.

This article in the New York Times describes two tools that Facebook are developing for churches. Firstly, a subscription service, “where users pay, for example, $9.99 per month and receive exclusive content, like messages from the bishop” and secondly a prayer service “where members of some Facebook groups can post prayer requests and others can respond.”
As my friend Duncan put it to me:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptise them and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. But make sure to put the really good teaching behind a paywall.
Friends, Scientology is not our model. The fact that senior leaders of a number of churches didn’t immediately smell a rat means something’s gone wrong with their noses.
I won’t speculate what their problems may be, but this is a terrible idea. So terrible it surely only needs to be laughed at. What we offer we offer for free. Yes, we ask for people’s money, that’s how all churches exist and continue to run, but these are generous offerings in response to what they received from God.
Or in the crassest terms, if you really want an extra £10 a month from someone, teach them the really good stuff. God might inspire them to want to give it to you.
Praying to commercial gods
I’m more concerned about the prayer tool, because it sounds like something we might conceivably use. But why are Facebook doing this? After all, Facebook is not our friend. People who used to work there have been surprisingly candid about their intent to ‘exploit a vulnerability in human psychology’.1 The old adage that if it’s free you’re the product rings true. Facebook are an advertising company, which they make no bones about.
I am concerned that if I input my prayer request I will be bombarded with adverts on their platforms for services which will fix my problem in some fashion. I may even be deceived into thinking this is a message from the Lord. Can the Almighty move an advertising algorithm to my benefit? Yes. But that doesn’t mean he did.
Imagine the most painful situation. A couple struggling with the deep feelings of shame and the ongoing heartache of infertility summon up the courage to input their prayers online. Adverts from fertility clinics, potentially offering all manner of unethical options, abound. At best this is confusing, most likely asking for prayer seems to have deepened their pain.
Even in a more run-of-the-mill situation, do I want an advertising company knowing my deepest thoughts? Their business is structured around knowing as much as they can about me in order to sell me things.
Or, if people are aware of this, do we want them to be afraid to ask for prayer because of how Facebook might use it?
It’s quite possible that many of the tools they’re developing will be useful to gospel ministry. Have a look at my previous post to for some initial thoughts about tools in ministry, and how to approach those questions.
Connection-makers
Facebook’s COO, Sheryl Sandberg is quoted as saying “Faith organizations and social media are a natural fit because fundamentally both are about connection.”
Are they? It’s the sort of thing that sounds very reasonable in an executive’s mouth, but let’s pause to hear the nonsense. Is Christianity fundamentally about connection? Is church? It sounds like it could be true enough for us to nod along, but it’s not actually true. It’s truth-adjacent, if you will. It isn’t wrong, but it’s not what the message of the crucified carpenter king is about at all.
“I died on the cross because I really want you all to love each other and get connected.”
Not Jesus, thank goodness
Let’s not accept the premise. Are we given ‘connection’ with God by Jesus work on our behalf? I suppose, but much better I’m given sonship, friendship, and a table richly laden. I’m adopted, not simply connected. By the Emperor of the cosmos, the Potentate of Time. As the meme goes, “you and I are not the same.”
A Centre of Gravity
Here perhaps we reach for a bigger lesson. Is there nothing that cannot be online? Is there nothing that cannot be subsumed under totalising social platforms? Sometimes it feels like there isn’t anything left. But it’s a lie. Most of what makes life good, from the Lord’s table to gathering around my table, is not online.
I appreciate that there will be some who would beg to differ, and that they have often been driven to online places that understand them from deep and lasting hurt. I can only sympathise and gently suggest that while I’m sure those spaces have been very helpful, there is better promised.
Read More

After a number of whereas statements, Grace Presbytery concluded with the following request: “Therefore, be it resolved that Grace Presbytery requests that the General Assembly assume original jurisdiction in the case of the doctrinal error of Teaching Elder Greg Johnson, per BCO 34-1.”

On May 10, 2022, Grace Presbytery approved an overture to submit to General Assembly. This overture requests that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America assume original jurisdiction of TE Greg Johnson to investigate his views on alleged doctrinal errors on biblical human sexuality.
The Book of Church Order 34-1 states that at least two presbyteries must request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction over a minister to act in cases of doctrinal issues or public scandal. Grace Presbytery is the second one to approve the overture. They join Southeast Alabama Presbytery in requesting the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction.
Here is the Overture:

OVERTURE from Grace Presbytery“BCO 34-1 Request to Assume Original Jurisdiction over TE Greg Johnson”
Whereas in his responses to Missouri Presbytery’s July 21, 2020, BCO 31-2 investigation of allegations against him, TE Greg Johnson affirmed in some matters he was either unclear, imprecise, or his perspectives have matured over time (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 10, lines 40-45),
Whereas in his responses to the Standing Judicial Commission’s additional questions, TE Greg Johnson affirmed his belief in the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality regarding same-sex attraction (homosexual orientation, inter alia) and qualifications for ordained ministerial office, as summarized in the Westminster Standards (e.g., SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 14; lines 25-30; lines 42-45, pg. 15; lines 1-20, etc.),
Whereas in his responses to the Standing Judicial Commission’s additional questions, TE Greg Johnson specifically denied identifying as a “gay Christian,” including using this couplet of words (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 17; lines 42-46, pg. 16; lines 1-11),
Whereas in his responses to the Standing Judicial Commission’s additional questions, TE Greg Johnson affirmed the necessity of a man ordained to ministerial office to be above reproach (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 24; lines 38-46, pg. 25; lines 1-46, pg. 26; lines 1-30),
Whereas in his responses to the Standing Judicial Commission’s additional questions, TE Greg Johnson affirmed that some of his public comments had upset the peace of the PCA, and offered a commitment to repair such harm and work to commit no further harm (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 27; lines 25-34),
Whereas since the record of the case of the original Missouri Presbytery investigation of him (July 21, 2020), and even after the Standing Judicial Commission judicial case 2020-12 (October 21, 2021), TE Greg Johnson has made numerous public comments that appear to either contradict or at least offer confusion to his previous affirmations in these matters (see examples in the attached addendum),
Whereas the Standing Judicial Commission found Missouri Presbytery did err by “failing to do what it needed to do to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church, particularly in light of the responsibilities set forth in BCO 11-3, 4” pertaining to Revoice 18 (SJC Judicial Case 2020-05; lines 26-35),
Whereas TE Greg Johnson uses the same confusing and misleading terminology as Revoice 18, throughout his book, Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality (Zondervan, 12/7/21),
Therefore, be it resolved that Grace Presbytery requests that the General Assembly assume original jurisdiction in the case of the doctrinal error of Teaching Elder Greg Johnson, per BCO 34-1.
Approved by Grace Presbytery on the 10th day of May, 2022.Attested by Samuel J. Duncan, Stated Clerk of Grace Presbytery
Attachment: Addendum, examples of public comments from TE Greg Johnson either contradicting or offering confusion to his affirmations to Missouri Presbytery’s BCO 31-2 investigation (July 21, 2020), and the Standing Judicial Commission judicial case 2020-12 (October 21, 2021).
Attachment(Overture to 49th General Assembly)Examples of public comments from TE Greg Johnsoneither contradicting or offering confusion to his affirmations toMissouri Presbytery’s BCO 31-2 investigation (July 21, 2020),and the Standing Judicial CommissionJudicial Case 2020-12 (October 21, 2021)
11/05/21 Comments in an article, published in the Washington Post, “Traditional ‘Side B’ LGBTQ Christians experience a renaissance,” by Kathryn Post (originally published by Religion News Service, https://religionnews.com/2021/11/05/traditional-side-b-lgbtq-christians-experience-a-renaissance/).
11/18/21 Comments in a blog post, published on The Center For Faith, Sexuality & Gender blog site, “Equivocation and the Ex-Gay Script” (https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/equivocation-and-the-ex-gay-script).
12/03/21 Comments in a podcast interview, published on The Hole in My Heart Podcast, “Episode 189: The Church Wasn’t Always So Bad at the LGBTQ Conversation with Greg Johnson” (https://lauriekrieg.com/podcast/the-church-wasnt-always-so-terrible-at-the-lgbtq-conversation-with-greg-johnson/)
12/07/21 Comments in his book, Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality (Zondervan, 12/7/21).
12/22/21 Comments in an article, published in USA Today, “I’m a gay, celibate pastor of a conservative church. Here’s a trick for de-escalation.” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/12/22/family-holidays-god-patience-compassion/6496994001/?gnt-cfr=1)
12/29/21 Comment on Facebook page, “As you consider final year end giving, please support Revoice.  No movement has done more to shift conservative Christian thinking from the false hope of ex-gay cures to the great tradition of care for non-straight people committed to living out the biblical sexual ethic within the church.  This ministry has meant a great deal to me, and your consideration will be deeply appreciated.”
01/02/22 Comments in a podcast interview, published on The Hopper Podcast, “41 Greg Johnson, Still Time to Care / Linus in the Resurrection” (https://podcasts.captivate.fm/media/4b17fc7d-79da-4c3a-8ab0-74ebf4a0cb92/02-greg-johnson.mp3).
01/04/22 Comments in a podcast interview, published on Conversations About Life, “Being Gay and Christian w/ Pastor Greg Johnson” (https://willjackson.com/ being-gay-and-christian-w-pastor-greg-johnson/).
01/25/22 Comments in a podcast interview, published on The Learner’s Corner with Caleb Mason, “Episode 269: Greg Johnson On What We Can Learn From the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality” (https://podcast.app/greg-johnson-on-what-we-can-learn-from-the-churchs-failed-attempt-to-cure-homosexuality-e202358953/).
02/12/22 Comments in a booklet, On Mission with the LGBTQ+ Community (Zondervan, supplement to Still Time to Care). (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?%20story_fbid=3140676279584649&id=100009269249854&__cft__[0]=AZXHombYoEDWNCvkRpzWlYG8mCooDtS2qQk_KzE6Lcn8KadXolEqezT3elg4dvGvKFRISxCyDHC6LcfCIunLwthjBCwcxaJKRSz2aABvF0_GC-5IvMsxxmlCyTGwR41H7x0&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R%2Chttps%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1gu0ZH6igfWes0vyp%20OUnEtnTEMigw9fVu%2Fview).
Related Posts: