Grasping God's Word

 Here is a quick review of the items to look for during bible reading:
 
1. Repetition of words – Look for words and phrases that repeat.
2. Contrasts – Look for ideas, individuals, and/or items that are contrasted with each other. Look for differences.
3. Comparisons – Look for ideas, individuals, and/or items that are compared with each other. Look also for similarities.
4. Lists – Anytime the text mentions more than two items, identify them as a list.
5. Cause and effect – Look for cause-and-effect relationships.
6. Figures of speech – Identify expressions that convey an image, using words in a sense other than the normal literal sense.
7. Conjunctions – Notice terms that join units, like “and,” “but,” “for.” Note what they are connecting.
8. Verbs – Note whether a verb is past, present, or future; active or passive; and the like.
9. Pronouns – Identify the antecedent for each pronoun.
10. Questions and answers – Note if the text is built on a question-and-answer format.
11. Dialogue – Note if the text includes dialogue. Identify who is speaking and to whom.
12. Means – Note if a sentence indicates that something was done by means of someone/something (answers “how?”). Usually you can insert the phrase “by means of” into the sentence.
13. Purpose/result statements – These are a more specific type of “means,” often telling why. Purpose and result are similar and sometimes indistinguishable. In a purpose statement, you usually can insert the phrase “in order that.” In a result clause, you usually can insert the phrase “so that.”
14. General to specific and specific to general – Find the general statements that are followed by specific examples or applications of the general. Also find specific statements that are summarized by a general one.
15. Conditional clauses – A clause can present the condition by which some action or consequence will result. Often such statements use an “if … then” framework (although in English the “then” is often left out).
16. Actions/roles of God – Identify actions or roles that the text ascribes to God.
17. Actions/roles of people – Identify actions or roles that the text ascribes to people or encourages people to do/be.
18. Emotional terms – Does the passage use terms that have emotional energy, like kinship words (“father,” “son”) or words like “pleading”?
19. Tone of the passage – What is the overall tone of the passage: happy, sad, encouraging, and so on?

- J. Scott Duvall & J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God's Word: 

A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible, 2016

Contextualization in Preaching

Contextualization in preaching is communicating the gospel message in ways that are understandable or appropriate to the listener’s cultural context. In other words, contextualization is concerned with us and now.

Some preachers spend more time reading and meditating on our contextual setting than we do on God’s Word. We get caught up in sermonizing about our world or city in an effort to be relevant. As a result, we settle for giving shallow impressions of the text. We forget that the biblical text is the relevant word. It deserves our greatest powers of meditation and explanation.

To put it differently, the preacher is bound to miss the mark of biblical exposition when he allows the context he is trying to win for Christ control the Word he speaks of Christ. As I stated in the introduction, this is the undoing of many of our churches. Too many of us unconsciously believe that a well-studied understanding of our cultural context, rather than the Bible, is the key to preaching with power. 

Blind adherence to contextualization alters our preaching in at least three ways, and none of them is for the better. 

First, it impairs our perspective in the study—in his preparation of his sermon, the preacher becomes preoccupied with the world rather than God’s Word. This leads to impressionistic preaching. 

Second, it changes our use of the pulpit—the Word now supports our intoxicating plans and purposes, rather than those of God. This is inebriated preaching. 

Finally, it shifts our understanding of authority—the preacher’s “fresh” and “spirit led” devotional reading becomes the determinative point of truth. I call this “inspired” preaching.

You are looking for things that you know will make an immediate impression upon your listeners. You begin enjoying this momentary diversion. The work is not hard. Soon a main idea emerges. You contextualize well since, just like your congregation on Sunday, you are not that passionate about things historical. In fact, you got this job, in part, because they were impressed with how well you produced attention-grabbing messages from the otherwise inaccessible ancient realism of biblical scenes. A detailed study of the text can wait.

This is impressionistic preaching. 

It happens a lot. In fact, it may be the most significant problem facing preachers today. Impressionistic preaching is not restrained by the reality of the text. It ignores the historical, literary, and theological contours of the text. It brushes past—in a matter of minutes—many of the exegetical tools you spent time developing. Where the realist painter might look at his object ten times before painting a single stroke, the impressionist looks at his text once and puts ten strokes on the canvas of human experience. So, too, the impressionist preacher. 

-  David R. Helm, Expositional Preaching: How We Speak God's Word Today

民主转型与民主困境

政体要么民主要么不民主？这是政体类型的经典两分法，这种两分法在1974年启动的第三波民主化之前并无大碍。但是，第三波以来的重要现象是出现了大量的“两不像政体”（hybrid regime）。这一现象国外已经有较多研究，国内学界对此介绍较少。“两不像政体”顾名思义，就是既非标准的威权政体，亦非标准的民主政体，而是介于两者之间。其常见特征是：主要行政长官和议员通常由定期选举产生，普通选民的投票能发挥实际作用，选举过程中存在不同力量的政治竞争；但是，这些国家的选举过程并没有做到自由和公正，通常存在不同程度的选举舞弊和欺诈，当选的执政者则常常利用行政资源压制反对派和媒体，进行各种政治操纵，甚至为一己之私而推动修宪。正因为这些特征，国际学界通常把“两不像政体”视为威权色彩浓厚的政体类型。借助这一概念，大家就更容易理解一些转型国家正在发生的事情。
 
在政治上，宪政本身是无法自我实施的。背后的深层逻辑是，不少人把民主的文本或宪法简单地视为一套可拆卸的政治装置。一旦一个国家安上这套政治装置，该国就变成民主国家或立宪国家了。但实际上，民主的文本或宪法本身不过是几张纸而已。民主的文本或宪法能否生效，能否运转起来，以及能否运转得好，全赖实际的政治过程，全赖主要政治力量的所作所为，全赖政治家的领导力与选择。所以，民主这套政治装置究竟怎样，不仅取决于这套政治装置本身，更取决于安装和操作这套装置的人。
 
搞好民主的复杂因素
 
民主搞不好的直接问题是不会搞民主。民主要搞好，既涉及一套基于民主文本和宪法条款的制度安排，又涉及政治精英和主要政治力量的信念与行为，还涉及最初的民主实践能否常规化、惯例化与稳定化。这里的任何一个方面要搞好，都太不容易。转型困难国家的一个重大挑战，是此前的旧政体没有给新政体留下多少有利的遗产，反而是留下了很多沉重的包袱。一位美国学者在评价埃及转型时这样说：“对民主而言，威权政体是一所糟糕的学校。”以埃及为例，复杂的教派冲突、政治上强势的军队、缺乏充分民主信念的精英阶层、落后的经济社会状况都是转型的阻力，当然也都是政治搞不好的原因。但是，这些问题没有一样是民主本身造成的，而都是此前统治的遗产。所以，这样的国家民主搞不好很可能是此前的负资产过于庞大，而不能简单归咎于民主本身的问题。
 
对不少转型国家来说，无法通过民主的方式形成有效的政府能力，是民主搞不好的重要原因。政府缺乏效能的常见情形包括：行政权与立法权的冲突、无法形成多数派执政党、议会政党数量的碎片化、政治领导层阶层缺乏领导力和政治技巧，以及缺乏功能健全的官僚系统，等等。在保证政治参与和政治竞争的同时，民主政府同时还必须有所作为，这样才能维系其民主政体本身。如果民主政府缺乏效能，从消极方面讲，政府可能会陷于瘫痪，政治竞争与分权制衡将演变为不同政治家与党派的恶斗；从积极方面讲，政府将无力应对重大的政治经济问题，无法在市场改革与经济发展等关键问题上达成绩效，也就无法通过提高新政体的绩效合法性来强化程序合法性。有民主而无效能，终将损害民主本身。

- 包刚升，《被误解的民主》，2015

民主的政治平等与多数暴政

民主就是“选主”？既然现代民主的核心是竞争性的选举制度，那么民主会不会沦为“选主”呢？“选主”的英文是electocracy，可直译为“选举统治”。国内有著名学者指出现代民主已经沦为“选主”，意指两个主要的含义。
 
第一，“选主”是指选举统治者，然后由选举出来的一个或一群统治者行使统治权，而这已背离了“人民当家作主”的本意。
第二，“选主”按英文本意是指选举决定的统治，选举本身成为统治或政治的核心问题。这样，可能影响乃至操纵选举的力量就有可能左右政治。倘若财富能够控制选举，民主甚至会从“选主”沦为“金主”。
 
约瑟夫·熊彼特认为，民主并不意味着人民的直接统治，而只是意味着人民有选择谁来统治的权利……实际上，与非民主政体相比，民主政体的巨大优势就在于人民有权选择统治者，而其他政体下的统治者要么是自我任命的，要么是一个小圈子任命的。
 
第二种批评的观点也有类似的问题。民主政治既然承认“一人一票”，就意味着民主在基本的方面是“数人头的政治”。当然，每个人的政治影响力是不同的。那些有较强的组织动员力量、较大的言论与话语权以及丰裕的财务资源的人会拥有更大的政治影响力，从而可以在更大程度上左右选举与政治的结果。从这个意义上讲，民主确保的是权利与形式上的政治平等，而不能确保结果与实质上的政治平等。即便如此，投票规则仍然是一人一票和多数决定，这就是人类社会可能实践的一种政治平等。想让每个人发挥完全同等的政治影响力，这是任何社会、任何制度都做不到的。而且，普通选民还可以在同样拥有巨大政治影响力的不同政治精英团体之间做选择。此外，为了防止资本力量过分干预选举，很多民主国家还设定政治献金法，规定个人与企业政治捐款的上限。
 
民主会导致多数暴政？
 
民主思想史上，多数暴政是最著名的概念之一。这个概念由于法国思想家托克维尔和英国思想家约翰·密尔的论述而广为流传，深得人心。尽管多数暴政被保守主义思想家视为民主可能的弊害之一，但在近现代历史进程中，严格意义上的多数暴政情形并不多见。较为著名的例子恐怕要数法国大革命过程中的群众政治。比如，他们未经审判就把不少贵族和政治活动家送上了绞架。而对古典自由主义者或自由至上论者来说，一国内部具有“民粹化”取向的公共政策都可以被视为多数暴政的情形。比如，过高的税收与过高的福利相结合的公共政策，在他们看来有可能构成穷人对富人的变相掠夺。当然，这是否属于多数暴政肯定会存在争议。
 
尽管多数暴政是民主条件下可能出现的一种极端情形，但现代民主政体已经发展出了抑制多数暴政的两种主要机制：一是民主与法治的联姻，二是民主内部的权力制衡。法治所崇尚的法律至上原则，不仅确定了政府权力的边界，而且规制了民主决策可能的边界。此外，现代民主制下政治权力不会集中在一个人或一个机构手中，无论是美国式的总统制还是英国式的议会制都有分权制衡机制。所以，作为一种制度组合，现代民主政体不唯独强调政治参与和多数决定，还强调法治与权力制衡——后者通常是多数暴政的刹车片。
 
从全球范围看，民主并不必然导致高质量的公共治理。民主能否带来高质量的公共治理，主要取决于该国的政治家与选民如何运作民主。
 

- 包刚升，《被误解的民主》，2015

 

民主是一个政治哲学命题？

目前学界和媒体通常把民主当成一个政治哲学问题来处理。比如，最常见的讨论议题包括民主是否优于其他政体，以及民主的优势与弊端等；最经常被提及的人物包括法国启蒙思想家卢梭，法国思想家托克维尔和《民主新论》作者萨托利等；最著名的引用语包括“民主是个好东西”（哈佛大学教授塞缪尔·亨廷顿在《第三波》前言中的话），以及“多数的暴政”等。这些热点内容大致反映出国内对民主问题的关注重点与普遍认知。
 
民主的哲学思辨当然非常重要。但是，最近半个世纪以来，民主主要是一个转型问题。离开转型谈民主，意义不是太大。与哲学思辨相比，转型研究更多关注经验世界已经发生什么和正在发生什么，而非“应该”发生什么。
 
如今，大众视野里的民主要么是政治哲学意义上的民主，要么是作为发达国家民主典范的英美民主。前者往往把民主理解为一个“应然”的问题，后者容易把民主过分理想化。但是，特别是对于发展中地区来说，经验世界里的民主与实际发生的转型，跟前面两种解读都相去甚远。所以，只有关注转型问题，才不会以过分简单化的思维来理解民主。
 
转型是一个单向线性的进程？
 
即便进入经验世界，不少人容易把转型理解为一个单向线性的进程，众所周知的转型三步曲是：旧政体的瓦解、新政体的创建和新政体的巩固。顺利完成转型三步曲的最著名案例要算美国。美国人第一步是通过1776～1783年的独立战争赶走了英国人，旧政体瓦解了；第二步是1787年制定宪法以及随后建立联邦政府，新政体创建了；第三步是宪法的有效运转及政治制度的完善，新政体巩固了。
 
但是，需要提醒的是，美国通常被视为政治发展的特例。其他大国——诸如法国、德国、意大利、日本等，从传统政治向现代政治的转型都经历过较为曲折的过程，这些国家至少都经历过一次民主政体的崩溃。
 
从很多国家的经验来看，转型就如同新政体的分娩过程，可能伴随着巨大的痛苦与反复的挣扎。这样，就不难理解乌克兰的转型难题与政治危机。有的国家至今还在转型道路上徘徊，比如泰国。

- 包刚升，《被误解的民主》，2015

The Meanings of the “World”

In the New Testament, the term world (Gk. kosmos) has three basic meanings: (1) the earth, the created order; (2) the nations, the human community; (3) the ways of fallen humanity, alienated from God and his truth. It is this third sense of the term that I have suggested is largely equivalent to "modernity" in contemporary Western culture. It is worthy of note that this sense of the term as it appears in the New Testament signifies not a sociological reality but a theological reality. This may explain why worldliness is so frequently being missed, or misjudged, in the evangelical church today: it takes theological sense, theological judgment to recognize it, and that is precisely what has disappeared from the church.

This "world," then, is the way in which our collective life in society (and the culture that goes with it) is organized around the self in substitution for God. It is life characterized by self-righteousness, selfcenteredness, self-satisfaction, self-aggrandizement, and self-promotion, with a corresponding distaste for the self-denial proper to union with Christ. As comfortable as this self-centered reordering of moral and spiritual reality may seem, however, it is inevitably attended by "worldly grief" (2 Cor. 7:10), because, having displaced God from the center of our personal universe, we have made it impossible to care for ourselves as we should. The triumph of the self is always Pyrrhic; it amounts to a paradoxical abandonment of the true self, a ruin that begins to cast its shadows over the human spirit long before the day in which God's judgment is heard.

There is a clear line, then, between those who belong to Christ and those who do not, a line separating two very different ways of viewing self and world. If we stay with John, we can easily see how sharply he differentiates these two spiritual realms. "Those who belong to the church have been born of God (1 John 3:1-3); those who belong to the world have not (1 John 4:4-6). The church belongs to Christ (1 John 3:7-10); the world belongs to Satan (1 John 5:19), its "prince" (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). All that is of Christ endures forever; all that is of the world is transient, fading (1 John 2:17), and under God's judgment (1 John 4:17). Love for God, therefore, is utterly incompatible with love of the world (1 John 2:15).

Bultmann has suggested that John shaped this antithesis between the character of God and the nature of life in four ways, contrasting light and darkness, truth and falsehood, freedom and bondage, and life and death.(' These categories are not mutually exclusive, of course; in fact, they overlap in significant ways.

 - David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: 

The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams, 1994.

The West Is in the Midst of Huge Cultural Shifts?

 What are these cultural changes that have contributed to the marginalization of the church? 

First, we are in the midst of a shift from modernity to postmodernity, postmodernity. This shift represents a challenge to the main assertions of modernity, with its pursuit of order, the loss of tradition, and the separation of the different spheres of reality, expressed, for example, in the separation of the sacred and the profane at every level. More often than not, the church has found itself taking the side of modernity, defending its project against all viewpoints.

Second, we are embroiled in a shift from Westernization to globalization.

Third, we are engaged in a communication revolution, as we shift from a print culture to an electronic-based culture. 

Fourth, we are in the midst of a dramatic shift in our economic mode of production, as we transition from national and industrial-based economies to economies that are international, information based, and consumer driven. 

Fifth, we are on the verge of significant breakthroughs in understanding the human at a biological level. Sixth, we are seeing a convergence of science and religion that has not been seen in centuries.

- Gibbs, Eddie; Bolger, Ryan K. Emerging Churches. 2005.

Who is 'Pharisee'

The Pharisees (cf. NBD, pp. 924–925) were spiritual descendants of pious groups that had successfully opposed the notoriously cruel government of Antiochus Epiphanes (175–163 BC). This Syrian monarch had attempted to obliterate the Jewish faith. The Pharisees were extremely scrupulous about observing every minute detail of the law of God as they understood it, and were engaged in establishing an oral tradition about how that law was to be obeyed. At the same time they were in certain respects innovators, not mere traditionalists, for the creative and innovative manipulation of the oral tradition meant they were able to meet new challenges and situations more imaginatively than could mere traditionalists. Josephus, a first-century soldier-historian, tells us that there were about six thousand Pharisees in his day (Jos., Ant. xvii. 42). They met in ‘fellowship groups’ and controlled the teaching of many synagogues around the country. Most priests and Levites, however, belonged to the party of the Sadducees (whom John does not explicitly mention, probably in part because they were no longer a significant power at the time of writing). The Sadducees held to the authority of the written word alone, and judged the Pharisees to be both too innovative and too particular on many fronts. Their power was centred in Jerusalem and its temple–and therefore in the priests and Levites.

- The Gospel according to John, by D. A. Carson. (PNTC)